Northern Ireland Assembly, 13 May 2025

323 contributions from 53 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

On Tuesday 29 April and Tuesday 6 May, Members raised points of order about the conduct of Jonathan Buckley. I will return to those matters today. First, on Tuesday 29 April, Mr Stewart Dickson asked me to review the disruption that Mr Buckley caused from a sedentary position during questions to the Minister of Justice. As I have previously made clear, including on that day, I like to see some life in the House. Passionate debate in the Chamber, particularly during Question Time, is healthy. I have indicated that I intend to return to issues about our standards of debate, particularly in the context of our scrutiny functions.

I am not a great believer in Members reading speeches without taking interventions and so on. That does not strike me as being much of a debate. I welcome the opportunity, however, to clarify that there is a difference between lively and passionate debate and disorderly behaviour. It is imperative that the individual who has the Floor be heard, but that does not mean that they have to be heard in total silence. That having been said, when someone is speaking, it is not acceptable to shout continually from a sedentary position to the extent that the Member or, indeed, the Minister who has the Floor is disrupted and cannot proceed with their contribution or cannot be heard. If Members were to make a habit of such behaviour, they might find that they will not be called from the Chair.

At Question Time that day, wider issues were raised about Standing Order 19 and whether it is appropriate to ask a Minister for their opinion. I do not think that Mr Buckley is the first Member to ask a Minister for their opinion. In fact, it happens regularly. It is often friendly fire, and, as such, Ministers are happy to give their opinion.

Therefore, although Ministers may complain when there is unfriendly fire, the remarks have to be taken in that context. That having been said, as Speaker, I am not really interested in Minister's opinions; I am interested in facts. Members should bear in mind that, when they ask a Minister questions, they are seeking to scrutinise that Minister in order to get the facts. The Minister's opinions do not really matter.

Further to that, a number of Ministers are also party leaders, and they are being asked questions as party leaders. I remind Members that their questions are to Ministers. A Minister's position as a party leader is a separate issue, and we would do well to avoid that confusion.

Last Tuesday, 6 May, Sinéad Ennis raised a point of order regarding Mr Buckley's contribution about Danny Baker during Members' statements. I have reviewed the Official Report and taken advice, and Ms Ennis was right in stating that Standing Order 24A(6) is clear that Members' statements:

"must not ... be used to impugn or to attack another member."

That does not mean that Members' statements cannot be used, for example, to criticise ministerial inaction or, indeed, action. However, they should not be used to attack the character of another Member. Mr Buckley did that in his remarks about Mr Baker. I have said before that Members should deal with issues rather than the person.

Following Ms Ennis's point of order, I am taking a number of actions. First, Members will note that, at the beginning of Members' statements yesterday, Members were reminded of the restrictions that are set out in Standing Orders. That includes another requirement that Members have overlooked on a number of occasions, which is that they should address only one subject during a Member's statement. Secondly, to deal with issues on occasions beyond Members' statements, I am making a ruling based on expected levels of courtesy in other places. If a Member intends to make a contribution in the Chamber that raises issues about another Member, they should inform that Member in advance so that they have the opportunity to be present if they so wish.

Those are some points on behaviour for all Members to consider.

Matter of the Day

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Matthew O'Toole has been given leave to make a statement on the impact of proposed UK immigration reforms on Northern Ireland, which fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called, they should rise in their place. All Members who contribute will have up to three minutes to speak on the subject. No interventions or points of order will be taken during this period.

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

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for accepting this Matter of the Day. I want to double-check that I have five minutes to make an opening statement. Is that correct?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Three minutes.

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

Thank you.

Yesterday, the UK Government launched their White Paper on immigration reform. It marked a step change in their approach to immigration in a sharply rightward direction. Those who read the Prime Minister's remarks or, indeed, those of the Home Secretary will not find, as far as I can see, a single word of clear praise for immigration and the benefits that migration, new communities and entrants with skills, talent, energy and hope can bring to our society and societies everywhere. I acknowledge, because it is obvious, that no state can have a completely uncontrolled migration system. Of course, every state in the world applies rules on immigration, but it is clear that what happened yesterday is part of a trend in British politics that has been happening for more than a decade. It was a sharp shift rightward that many people in Northern Ireland do not want and from which our economy will suffer.

I will talk about some of the broader conclusions in a moment, but, more specifically, there will be real-world consequences from the kinds of policies on UK immigration that Keir Starmer's Government announced. Clamping down on care workers will impact on our health service and our care sector. Increasing salary thresholds will affect a wide range of sectors, which have already suffered from labour access issues in Northern Ireland. Those sectors range from parts of our fintech sector in Northern Ireland, which has occasionally had challenges in bringing in people post Brexit, to our fishing industry, which, as many people will know, has benefited not only from our local and, if you like, indigenous fishing communities but from skilled people who come from other parts of the world.

We also have a pre-existing, pernicious immigration control policy that will devastate the tourism economy in Northern Ireland and on the island of Ireland: the electronic travel authorisation (ETA). As people know, the overwhelming majority of visitors come into Northern Ireland across the border via Dublin Airport or, indeed, another port of entry in the Republic. They see travelling to this island, whatever about the politics and jurisdictional questions, as simply visiting Ireland. That is not a political statement; it is a statement of fact. We know that, for tour groups, the added bureaucracy and cost will create a challenge and make it harder to visit the amazing attractions that we have up here, be it the Giant's Causeway, Titanic Belfast, St Patrick's grave in Downpatrick or any of the other brilliant attractions. Those are all consequences of tightening immigration that our economy and people face.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

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

Sorry, Mr Speaker —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up. You had three minutes, Member. You were reminded of that at the start.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank Matthew O'Toole for bringing the Matter of the Day to the Floor of the Assembly. I agree: the British Government's announcement in the White Paper that sets out their intentions for a new immigration system is really worrying. I want to be clear — we all need to be clear — that it needs to be human rights-based and comply with and adhere to international law. No state has an open immigration policy; rules and controls are set. The latest announcement is shocking and worrying. From what I heard yesterday, there needs to be a more compassionate approach.

Our health and social care system is, as we all know — we have debated it a lot of times in the Chamber and will continue to do so for the rest of the mandate — at a point of real concern. Therefore, the removal of doctors, nurses, health and social care workers and allied health professionals (AHPs) from our health and social care system through the suggested policy is really concerning. Our agriculture sector — this is the week of the Balmoral show — will be severely hit, as will our food-processing sector. As Matthew outlined, it will have an impact on tourism and greatly affect the number of people who come here to see the sights that we are all trying to promote.

We need to get as much advice as possible on the potential impacts. We all must use whatever influence we have, particularly those who sit on the green Benches, to stand against such a worrying and, in fact, right-wing approach to the immigration system. I am also concerned about the impact that it may have on people who are genuinely seeking asylum and refugee status. That was not laid out in the paper yesterday.

Again, I thank Matthew for bringing the matter to the Floor today. I look forward to seeing a bit more detail on what the White Paper will bring, but, from what I have heard thus far, it is really concerning.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Finally, the penny has dropped. The issue of uncontrolled and illegal immigration has been a priority for the people of Northern Ireland and those across the United Kingdom for years, but it fell on deaf ears in parties such as Alliance, Sinn Féin and the SDLP, and there was silence from the UK Government, whether Conservative or Labour. Their inaction has caused catastrophic damage to the social fabric of the communities that we represent. How much longer were we expected to stand by in silence? How much longer would our communities be ignored and their concerns dismissed? How much longer would our borders be treated as optional guidelines rather than sovereign lines?

Just yesterday, Keir Starmer said:

"we risk becoming an island of strangers".

My goodness, what a hefty defeat in an election can bring forward: the Prime Minister is finally waking up and smelling the coffee. In many communities, it is already like that.

If you go to some of our working-class unionist or nationalist towns throughout Northern Ireland or, indeed, those that do not prescribe to being either, you will see communities that have been destroyed by the havoc of illegal immigration and quotas that have vastly outpaced the services that they represent.

I see the shaking of heads from Sinn Féin. Be under no illusion: you are completely out of step with many people in the nationalist community who face severe pressures in accessing public services. They cannot get access to their GPs or EDs. They are put to the back of the queue while interpreters come to our hospitals. That is a result of your reckless policies on border security. If we look at school places, we see that many of our constituents have been denied access to local schools. Why? It is because they have been put at the back of the queue. It is a grave issue that has to be addressed.

Yesterday, the National Audit Office reported that £400 million has been spent on housing illegal asylum seekers in Northern Ireland. That is four times the original indication, which is ridiculous, yet you are happy to splash out on those policies. You come to the House calling for more money for public services when you support policies that are bleeding public services dry. It is time that you woke up. I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister seems to be, essentially, accepting his party's failure in office and that of the Conservatives —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

— and we will hold them to account to ensure that they do just that.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank Matthew O'Toole for bringing this important issue to the House this morning. The previous Conservative Government's dire mismanagement has left our immigration system in tatters. Public trust has been entirely shattered, so it was right for the Government to take steps to fix our broken immigration system and ensure that it works for our country, but not through more of the same failed systems and policies of the Tory Government. We need a clear plan to make it easier to recruit workers to fill vacancies in the United Kingdom. They are the very people who Mr Buckley wants to keep out of the United Kingdom: hospital workers, doctors, nurses and care workers.

Since we left the European Union, immigration has become a serious problem for the United Kingdom. If Brexit had not happened, many of the issues would not be with us today. We need clear policies that set out how people will be welcomed to the United Kingdom. We also need to deal with the confusion in the public's mind between immigration and people who enter seeking asylum. Powell-like language is no badge of honour for a Prime Minister, and it is certainly no badge of honour for any Member of this House.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for bringing the debate to the Chamber, even if it is brief. The proposed UK immigration reforms have sparked strong opinions already, but any honest discussion of them must begin by recognising the devolved nature of governance. While immigration policy is reserved to Westminster, its consequences are deeply felt in devolved regions such as Northern Ireland, where the unique social, economic and historical context demands a nuanced approach. Immigration, when controlled, well-managed and transparently reported, needs to be deeply rooted in humanity. It should not be feared, because it enriches our communities, fills critical workforce gaps and brings fresh perspectives.

If there has been any failure in immigration across these islands — I think that there has been — it has been the blanket ban on open and honest reporting and the fear that that void creates. Unfortunately, the debate is often hijacked by those who demand almost entirely open borders and those who would shut the door completely. Both extremes polarise rather than inform, leaving little room for pragmatic, humane policymaking. What is needed is a robust, workable framework that balances compassion with control, reflecting real-world needs and the values of the affected communities — the communities that we live in. Northern Ireland, given that it shares a border with the EU, deserves a particular voice in shaping how the reforms would affect movement, labour markets and, crucially, integration.

Transparent reporting and respectful dialogue must underpin future immigration policy.

It is possible to uphold fairness, security and opportunity for those who come here to seek a new life and for those who already call this place home. That balance should be our collective goal.

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

I thank my colleague for bringing the issue to the House. I want to bring a local dimension to the discussion. If there is one thing that a hardened ideology will not do, it is put food on the table for people. A number of businesses in my constituency are struggling under the old rules to get staff to fill the posts to do the work. I am thinking of the fishing industry and the fish processing industry in particular, which require people for only short, seasonal work, but cannot get recognition from the British Government in London of the fact that their work is seasonal. As a result, those businesses are going to struggle to survive.

What does that mean? If half a business is made up of local people and half is complemented by seasonal workers, what happens if it does not have the workers and cannot deliver the work? The business closes. If the business closes and a number of people in the constituency lose their job, I hope that they will be able to go to the elected representatives of theirs who wave flags and talk about their ideology and ask them, now that they have to draw down money from the welfare state in order to survive, how that helps.

We need a sensible approach to the matter. The sensible approach is never on the far left or the far right; it is always somewhere in between. What was announced yesterday was not good, because, as my colleague said, it was a lurch to the right. Therefore, I would like the issue to be brought more to the centre. Nobody wants to see the downsides to mass immigration if it is there, but we want to see jobs in our community being filled so that people can flourish and businesses can survive. As I said, I am thinking especially of the owners and managers in the fish processing industry in my constituency who are saying that they are being brought to their knees because of the immigration policy. It cannot be good if they are being brought to their knees. Yesterday's announcement will take us even further to the right, which will not help.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Keir Starmer's announcement yesterday was divisive and disgraceful. I suspect that Nigel Farage and Reform UK were delighted with and were rubbing their hands at the use of Enoch Powell-style language, sticking the boot into migrants or people who are seeking asylum. Most of us, and certainly those in my party, knew that Keir Starmer would not be strong in standing up for oppressed and marginalised people, but many of us did not think that he would be this bad this quickly.

One of the worst aspects of yesterday's statement is the fact that Starmer is doing it all to save his own political skin. Rattled by the far right Reform UK party, he is a cowardly weathervane, and his announcement is being used to boost his party. What it will do, however, is boost the far right, racist, anti-migrant sentiment across Britain and probably on this island. It comes at a time when, just last week, we heard the BMA say that its members are terrified of using public transport because of racist violence. People, especially those in this House, should remember that, given their language and what they say.

Racism does not just magically appear from the sky or come about organically. It comes from the top of society. Keir Starmer has, once again, made a British Government policy statement that is racist and kicks our migrant brothers and sisters. Shame on him for doing so. We hear a lot about legitimate concerns. There is a duty, especially on people in this House, to challenge lies about migration. Migrants or asylum seekers are not a drain on public services. A drain on public services are billionaires, tax evasion by the rich and economic policy that takes a hammer blow to services day in, day out and year in, year out.

Yesterday, Starmer used dehumanising language when he referred to migrants in disgraceful terms. I want to say quite clearly that migrants are welcome in this part of the world. They are welcome in my constituency and in every part of the North, despite the fear and propaganda that is spouted by some, including in this House and in the media. The vast majority of people on this island are welcoming. There is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker. They do not exist. It is quite ironic that parties such as the DUP, Reform UK and others wholeheartedly back Britain's foreign policy, which creates refugees across the world. They are happy for Britain to spend billions on war and wreak havoc across the world, but they then lament and stick the boot into people for having the temerity to seek safety and sanctuary in this part of the world. The crisis in our health service was not caused by migrants or asylum seekers. It was caused by the economic policies of the British Government, and by the policies espoused by the DUP in particular.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The Bill that saw its Second Reading in the Commons yesterday was a welcome one; indeed, it has annoyed all the right people in this House this morning, namely Sinn Féin, the SDLP and their helpers in the Alliance Party, which shows me that it is a step in the right direction.

TUV wants to see boats crossing the channel stopped and immigration tightened up. TUV wants to see a Government that are serious about border security. However, I observe that this is only happening now because of the Mayday, Mayday alarm that was sent to the Labour Government at the local elections when Reform, which has a clear policy on immigration, swept the boards. The issue that concerns me is how this will apply to Northern Ireland. Our open border with the South and the Irish means that immigrants can be stopped at the border when travelling from the Irish Republic to Northern Ireland, but, for some reason, they are not being stopped when travelling from the South up here to Northern Ireland. That issue needs to be addressed urgently.

More alarming still is the possibility that the Bill could go the same way as the Rwanda Bill and be found by the courts to be incompatible with the protocol. If that happens — this is a stark warning — Northern Ireland will face the very real prospect of becoming a dumping ground for illegal immigrants, with no effective immigration law. I trust that the Labour Government will not inflict that on Northern Ireland and will take steps to ensure that that will not happen.

Members' Statements

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

The Department for Communities recently published the gambling prevalence survey for the North. The survey shows that 3% of our population are experiencing severe gambling-related harms, a further 10% are considered low- or moderate-risk gamblers, and approximately one in seven adults who participated in gambling here in the past 12 months said that they had, at least sometimes, bet more than they could afford to lose. About one in eight said that they needed to gamble larger amounts to get the same feeling of excitement, and just under one in 12 of those surveyed said that gambling had caused health problems, including stress and anxiety. Clearly, gambling can have a wider impact in money loss, and that can affect families and communities, with 10% of people reporting that their relationship with someone close, such as a spouse, partner, family member or friend, had broken down because of someone's gambling.

It is concerning that, despite the depressing figures that I have just quoted, the research also found that only 1% of people who gamble have sought help, support or information from a gambling support service or mental health services. That clearly shows that there is an unmet need for gambling treatment services here in the North. The Minister of Health must urgently move to commission treatment services for gambling addiction. Given existing pressures on addiction services, additional funding is required to provide those suffering from gambling-related harms with the support that they need and deserve. Therefore, the Minister for Communities needs to introduce a gambling industry levy on land-based operators here without delay.

It is also disappointing, though not surprising, to see that the North has a significantly higher rate of problem gambling than Britain. The British Government must do more to protect our population from gambling-related harm. The North does not receive any of the money raised from the statutory levy on online gambling operators introduced by the British Government on 6 April to fund research, prevention and treatment of gambling harms. That is despite the fact that online gambling operators here profit from gamblers in the North, and those same operators, licensed by Britain's Gambling Commission, are allowed to freely advertise here in the North where our population receives none of the regulatory protection afforded to those in Britain. Ministers need to step up their efforts to ensure that the North receives its fair share of the levy on online gambling companies.

The gambling prevalence survey also showed that two thirds of our people believe that there are too many gambling advertisements, and 71% supported a watershed for TV and radio gambling advertisements. The British Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport should urgently use her existing powers to introduce tighter restrictions on gambling advertising, including a watershed, to protect people here from gambling-related harms.

Alan Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

Yesterday, in the House, I referred to a 100-year anniversary, and I want to make a short reference to another: Limavady Hockey Club celebrates its 100th anniversary this year. Given the history of the House, it is always good to put on record sporting organisations across the Province that merit attention, especially on the way that they have existed alongside this seat of power.

I am no expert on hockey. The expertise in that sport seems to lie with the Education Minister and hockey coach, Paul Givan. However, it would be remiss of me, as someone born and bred in the Roe Valley, not to refer to that piece of Limavady sporting history, even as someone with limited knowledge of all things hockey. It is important that clubs with a century-long history tell their story, and what better way to be recorded for future generations than to be noted in this Chamber of government?

I also congratulate the club for having scored, in its centenary year, its 100th goal — a defining target that it hoped to meet during this milestone year. Indeed, it went on to break that 100-goal target. By all accounts, the 100-year anniversary gala dinner at the weekend was a huge success. It allowed members past and present to reflect on the rich history of the club.

Today also affords me the opportunity to congratulate someone who is described as the backbone of the club, Rhonda McClelland, who has served the local sporting organisation for 40 years of its 100-year existence. "Legend" is a word that can sometimes be thrown around cheaply, but ask anyone to describe someone who has given 40 years of their life to their local sports club, and "legend" most certainly fits the bill.

The centenary is a fantastic achievement for Limavady Hockey Club and the Limavady community. I commend the players, coaching staff and fans for their hard work and dedication, and here's hoping for another fabulous 100 years.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

I rise today as the chair of the all-party group on stroke to highlight World Thrombectomy Day, which takes place tomorrow, Wednesday 14 May. For those who are unaware, thrombectomy is a mechanical procedure that, if carried out on eligible stroke survivors in a timely manner, saves brains by significantly reducing the chance of disability, such as paralysis, visual impairment and communication difficulties after stroke. It saves money, as each patient who receives a thrombectomy ultimately saves the health service an average of £47,000 over five years. It also changes lives, as a quarter of patients who receive a thrombectomy experience reduced disability, while a fifth achieve functional independence.

Thanks to the efforts of hard-working stroke teams, Northern Ireland has a relatively well-developed thrombectomy service compared with the rest of the UK. Despite that, only 6·4% of patients receive a thrombectomy, meaning that we fall short of ensuring that every eligible patient, which is thought to be at least 10% of stroke patients, can benefit from that life-changing treatment. The only way to ensure that every eligible stroke patient receives a thrombectomy is by providing a 24/7 service. In the stroke action plan published in June 2022 the Department of Health committed to delivering a 24/7 service for Northern Ireland by the end of 2024. However, it was not achieved. The delay is unacceptable and will lead to more serious disabilities and, in some cases, death.

Last year, it was estimated that approximately 100 people in Northern Ireland missed out on a thrombectomy. Some of their stories have been brilliantly captured by a local film-maker, Harry Bateman, in his documentary, 'Thrombectomy: Restoring Life'. I urge Members to take 20 minutes to watch it via the Stroke Association website. In the documentary, Harry outlines the journey that he and his family have been on since his dad suffered a stroke in 2019. I also thank the Stroke Association and the secretariat of the all-party group on stroke for their continued work to campaign and raise awareness of the significant impact that a 24/7 thrombectomy service could have for stroke patients.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I want to mark the end of International Compost Awareness Week, which ran from 4 May to 10 May. It was a week dedicated entirely to compost, proving that even potato peelings, grass cuttings, banana skins and yesterday's leftovers can enjoy a bit of positive PR. Behind the humour, however, is a serious message, which is that composting is a powerful and natural way to fight climate change, improve soil health and boost biodiversity. Compost turns food and garden waste into a valuable resource, reducing landfill, cutting emissions and giving plants a nutrient-rich base. To celebrate the week, Northern Ireland's leading organics recycling company, Natural World Products, partnered with local councils to provide free, high-quality peat-free compost to households across the region. It was produced using the very food and garden waste that residents put in their brown bin and is a brilliant example of the circular economy in action. Full credit goes to Mrs Butler for making sure that I put that waste in the brown bin weekly. Councils in Antrim and Newtownabbey, Belfast, Ards and North Down, Lisburn and Castlereagh, Mid and East Antrim and Newry, Mourne and Down all took part, handing out compost to help residents grow a greener garden whilst supporting a greener planet.

The theme for this year's International Compost Awareness Week was "COMPOST ... Nature's Climate Champion", and that could not be more fitting. Composting helps store carbon, improves water retention and encourages stronger and more resilient plants. It is climate action with a trowel, is simple and effective and is something in which we all can get involved. International Compost Awareness Week is the world's largest education initiative focused on composting and brings together gardeners, farmers, councillors and communities in a shared effort to protect our planet. I commend Natural World Products and our local councils for helping residents get their hands dirty for a good cause, and I encourage everyone to keep composting, even after the spotlight moves on.

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

I will speak about the Downpatrick and County Down Railway, which is a fantastic local project in my constituency run by volunteers who have spent years restoring our railway heritage. They have built something really special. It is educational, is a tourist draw and brings real pride to our area. When the floods hit Downpatrick, however, the railway was the first place into which they came, and a lot of real and serious damage was done.

Unfortunately, the level of funding that was made available was nowhere near enough to help undo the damage that the floods caused. The volunteers had put years of work into restoring trains, carriages, tracks and buildings, and it took just a few days of heavy rain to undo that work. The level of funding provided to try to help the volunteers after the floods was not nearly enough for the size and the scale of their project. It was all the more galling for them when they found out that nearly half the money that had been set aside to try to assist businesses and groups was then sent back for Departments to use. That felt like the ultimate slap in the face, because it said to them, "A huge amount of damage was done. We have got some money, but you are not getting it". It is so sad that some mechanism was not made available for use by an organisation undertaking a community-based project that tries to tick so many of the boxes for government: bringing in tourists; trying to tackle social deprivation; and encouraging people to participate in their local community by volunteering to rejuvenate an area of the town that was previously run down and turning it into a cultural tourism destination. When it came to their need, the money was not there. Instead, the volunteers saw it go back to the centre and not be made available to them.

That made the volunteers very sad, and it also makes me very sad, because I want to see that part of Downpatrick be rejuvenated. I want to see more footfall in that part of the town, but the project has been set back by a number of years. There are other Department for Communities initiatives to try to lift Downpatrick, and I hope that we might be able to use them to try to lever in some support, especially to try to help those volunteers, who have put in numerous hours of their own time only to see everything literally swept away. I hope that we can continue to help them. Thank you to the volunteers for the work that they do. Hopefully, we can get some finance for them for the future.

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Ba mhaith liom an deis seo a ghlacadh le comhghairdeas a dhéanamh le Megan Walsh arb í an chéad bhean dóiteáin í i gCrois Mhic Lionnáin.

[Translation: I take this opportunity to congratulate Megan Walsh, the first female firefighter in Crossmaglen.]

Megan is a young woman from my constituency of South Armagh who already motivates us daily through her work in the Crossmaglen Community Association and her efforts to try to build a better future for her local area through community development. Now, she is bravely following in her father's footsteps by becoming a firefighter, the first female in Crossmaglen to do so, taking her inspirational work and achievements to new heights.

Megan epitomises the strength, determination and leadership that women bring to our communities. She has broken new ground in overcoming barriers in pursuit of her goals. In doing so, she has become a powerful role model for others. What makes that achievement even more selfless is the risk and danger that it poses. I wish Megan a long, safe and fulfilling career. Guim gach rath ort, a Megan.

[Translation: I wish you every success, Megan.]

Between rising temperatures and arson, wildfires have been spreading rapidly across the North this past week, and we are being warned to brace ourselves for more. It is beyond shameful that some of those fires have been started deliberately: they are damaging the environment and putting lives at risk. That is having a serious impact on rural communities as people are having to evacuate their homes due to the danger. The emergency services, especially the Fire and Rescue Service, have to be commended for the work that they have put in, which has kept people safe and helped to minimise damage. I extend my sincere thanks to the firefighters and members of the emergency services who have been working tirelessly throughout this period to protect lives and property.

Such incidents will, unfortunately, continue, if not increase in number, with the impact of global warming as record-breaking temperatures continue. The dangerous impacts of extreme weather do not recognise borders, and the best way to deal with the climate crisis is on an all-island basis. Climate change merits an all-island strategy to meet the significant challenge that it poses and deal with the impact that it will have on this island.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Although they were all related, we possibly had three different issues there.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

My statement is on a related subject. I pay tribute to the scores of firefighters who tackled a blaze in the Clogher Valley last week. At one point, over 100 firefighters were tasked to the area. The Fire and Rescue Service indicated that the fires were started deliberately, and I wholeheartedly condemn those responsible for them. The devastation was massive and upsetting to witness. It was awful to see the loss of habitat and the potential danger to the area. The fire could be seen from where I live.

Over recent days, many have made mention of their shock and sadness at seeing such a huge fire. The western area group commander, Patsy Begley, told the media that, in his 26 years in the Fire and Rescue Service, he has never seen anything like it. Last week, as a result of the fire, there was a stench of smoke in the area, large clouds of smoke and ash on cars and in buildings. Last night, I witnessed the ash blowing about in my own home, which shows how dangerous such fires could be for people with respiratory illnesses and one thing and another.

I place on record my thanks to the crews who worked around the clock and those that came down to the Clogher Valley from elsewhere in Northern Ireland. I also thank the PSNI, which monitored road closures to ensure that emergency vehicles could get through. It is a testament to the community spirit in my area that Clogher Valley Free Presbyterian Church enabled the emergency services to set up their base in its facilities. I congratulate the church for giving its building freely and assisting the Fire and Rescue Service in any way that it could.

The fire is still being investigated, but it should be a wake-up call for everybody that lighting fires is no type of game. If you think that it is, you should face up to what has happened in my area and in other parts of Northern Ireland in recent weeks and months and to the cost of destroying wildlife. Human life and property could have been destroyed as a result of those mindless actions. There is to be good weather this week: we welcome that but it also brings danger.

I urge the public to be vigilant about wildfires and lighting fires. Do everything possible to ensure that no further destruction occurs. Be safe and act responsibly.

Maolíosa McHugh (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Déanaimid Seachtain Dhomhanda na Náisiún Aontaithe um Shábháilteacht ar Bhóithre a cheiliúradh an tseachtain seo. Tá gortuithe tráchta ar bhóithre ar cheann de na príomhchúiseanna báis agus míchumais ar fud an domhain: maraítear beagnach 1.2 milliún duine agus gortaítear 50 milliún duine gach bliain i dtaismí bóthair. Is iad is mó is cúis bháis do dhaoine óga idir cúig bliana agus 29 mbliana d'aois. Is coisí nó rothaí é duine as gach ceathrar a mharaítear ar fud an domhain. Is ar shábháilteacht coisithe agus rothaithe atáimid a dhíriú ár n-airde an tseachtain seo, agus is amhlaidh is cóir.

Idir 2012 agus 2022, gortóidh beagnach 3,000 rothaí ar ár mbóithre. Ainneoin ár ndíchill, agus ainneoin a raibh ann d’fheachtais, níor tháinig aon titim ar líon na ndaoine a gortaíodh. Anuraidh, sna Sé Chontae is Fiche, is coisithe, rothaithe agus úsáideoirí r-scútair 40% daoibh sin a maraíodh ar na bóithre.

Is eol dúinn uile na deacrachtaí bonneagair atá againn. Mar sin de, molaimid do dhaoine modh eile iompair a úsáid leis an bhrú tráchta a éascú agus le cuidiú leis an timpeallacht. Agraím daoine a bheith ar a n-airdeall agus iad ag taisteal ar ár mbóithre. Tá freagracht ar gach duine againn muid féin, agus an mhuintir atá thart orainn, a choinneáil slán. Ba chóir do gach aon duine atá ag taisteal ar ár mbóithre ceann cúrsa a bhaint amach.

Maolíosa McHugh (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

[Translation: This week is UN Global Road Safety Week. Road traffic injuries are a leading cause of death and disability worldwide, with nearly 1.2 million people killed and as many as 50 million people injured every year. They are the leading killer of young people aged between five and 29. Globally, more than one out of every four deaths occurs among pedestrians and cyclists. The safety of cyclists and pedestrians is rightly this week’s focus. Between 2012 and 2022, almost 3,000 cyclists were injured on our roads. Despite campaigns, and despite our best efforts, the number of injuries has remained consistent. Last year, in the Twenty-six Counties, 40% of all road fatalities were cyclists, pedestrians and e-scooter users. We all know the difficulties facing our roads infrastructure. Therefore, we recommend that people use alternative modes of transport to ease traffic congestion and to help the environment. Today, I urge all road users to be vigilant on our roads. Each of us is responsible for our own safety and for the safety of those around us. Everyone travelling on our roads should make it to their destination.]

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

There is an increasing plague on communities in east Belfast, as there is across the country, I am sure, and that is the illegal use of scrambler bikes. In recent weeks, I have met police officers who cover the east Belfast and Dundonald areas to discuss the subject. It was clear from our discussions that the police have dealt with issues in the same areas as have been reported to me: on the greenway, at Tullycarnet, on the Beersbridge Road and Albertbridge Road, in Orangefield Park, on the Newtownards Road and in Ballybeen. On roads and in parks, residents are tortured, and parents are afraid for their children. Only a couple of weeks ago, a police officer was hurt in the course of their duty while trying to prevent the misuse of a scrambler. I recall that, in 2016, a mother was killed in, I believe, Falls Park in west Belfast, yet it seems that the police are still trying to deal with the problem with their arms tied behind their backs by regulations on engagement.

The danger has increased because of the proliferation of quieter electric scramblers. There is also an awareness that scramblers are used not only in reckless, antisocial behaviour or by naive youngsters but in a more sinister role. It is suspected that the bikes are regularly used by those who seek to collect debts or intimidate and in the supply of drugs.

It is clear that our police require more tools and direction to tackle the issue. From talking to the police, I feel that an increase in drone teams would be useful and make it easier to track, follow and, hopefully, apprehend culprits after the fact. The police also felt that the mandatory registration of such vehicles would be a step in the right direction. We could also look at education and awareness campaigns similar to those traditionally undertaken on speeding and drink-driving.

Ultimately, we have a problem where culprits are almost arrogant in their understanding of the limitations of officers, who often cannot give chase. We have to tilt the balance to ensure that those flouting the law are afraid of the repercussions and are aware that being caught is a real prospect. We ask the Justice Minister to seriously look at how our police are resourced, enabled and empowered to resolve the issue for our communities.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I rise as a representative of South Antrim to draw attention to the unsatisfactory state of rural public transport across the constituency. Across Northern Ireland, our rural communities remain severely underserved and neglected by transportation infrastructure. Residents in those areas face significant and, often, overwhelming difficulties in accessing essential services; stable employment opportunities; and social amenities and activities. That is primarily due to the unreliable, infrequent and, at times, entirely absent public transport provision that is available to them. It is disheartening to acknowledge that, despite the combined efforts of local representatives and community champions to advocate for improved services, the needs and voices of rural residents continue to go unheard.

The current transport situation not only continues systemic inequalities but creates a major obstacle to economic growth and social progress in those communities. For instance, in my constituency, the towns of Randalstown and Toome are situated along the primary route to Derry/Londonderry. Despite my Alliance colleagues and I attempting to negotiate and secure access to that bus route for either Belfast or Derry/Londonderry, we have encountered bureaucratic obstacles and disappointments. At the opposite end of my constituency, in Glenavy, my constituents regularly express frustrations about the inadequacy of the public transport services that should facilitate their children's commute to and from school. They face unnecessary detours and complications just to reach appropriate bus stops that should, ideally, be located within their neighbourhoods. Furthermore, I have heard from young people, especially students, about the difficulties that they encounter due to inadequate rural transport in my constituency. For example, those who lack access to a car struggle to obtain part-time jobs, which are essential to the local economy as well as to those young people's development. They also have difficulties in participating in university or college classes and social activities, which can negatively affect their mental and physical health.

Recognising the vital importance of accessible, efficient and reliable public transportation is crucial to enhancing the quality of life for all citizens, irrespective of their geographical location. Achieving that goal will require significant increases in public investment and enhancing connectivity between rural regions and urban centres, which are often viewed as hubs of opportunity. Members will be aware that, even within council areas, connectivity is a challenge. My Alliance colleagues and I will continue to advocate on the matter and address the ongoing shortcomings in our rural public transport system. We need an urgent review and action soon thereafter.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

I pay tribute to Mr John Allen, who made a massive, lifelong contribution to Northern Ireland athletics. In particular, he was a central figure in the development and growth of the Belfast marathon, serving as a director since the marathon's inception in 1982 and, more recently, as chair of the board for six years, including this year. John's passing last week was particularly poignant, as it came the day after this year's Belfast marathon. With record numbers participating this year and, it seemed to me, record numbers of people supporting the runners along the route, John's devotion to the Belfast marathon has left a strong legacy for many years to come. Having run the marathon six times in recent years, I am among the thousands who are indebted to John and the rest of the marathon board for all their organisation of a great event and to all the volunteers who make it happen.

On a personal note, it was always a pleasure to interact with John Allen, including when he attended Belfast City Council committee meetings on behalf of the marathon. He supported an event that we helped to organise at Paisley Park in 2017, which commemorated the 50th anniversary of the first breaking of the four-minute mile in Northern Ireland at that venue in 1967.

John was a member of Willowfield Temperance Harriers from an early age. He competed at international level in cross-country and track events. He served as Northern Ireland team manager at a Commonwealth Games and was previously chair of Athletics NI. In newspaper comments last week, David Seaton, another legend of Northern Ireland athletics and former race director and chair of the Belfast marathon, said that John was able to follow coverage of this year's marathon at home last Sunday. David said:

"That was his final farewell with athletics. The fact that he got the opportunity to see the Belfast Marathon live — there’s a poignancy about that. Despite having cancer, he was still heavily involved in athletics and very much one of the leading lights in local athletics."

A statement from the Belfast marathon committee included these words:

"John will be remembered as a gentleman, a leader, and a tireless advocate for athletics. He will be deeply missed by his family, friends, colleagues, and the wider sporting community."

I finish by expressing my great appreciation of John's massive contribution to athletics and my deepest condolences to his family, close friends and colleagues.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I call Paula Bradshaw. Ms Bradshaw, you have two minutes.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I refer to the report from the National Audit Office, which was published on 7 May and covered in the media here yesterday, regarding Home Office contracts for asylum seekers' accommodation. The headlines were about the costs of providing that accommodation and how they have risen to three times the initially projected figure across the UK and are higher still in Northern Ireland. However, the issue is about the UK trying to meet its international obligations to some of the most vulnerable people in the world by providing accommodation contracts on a for-profit basis. It is entirely entitled to do that, but, when it does, it must do so in a way that provides dignity to those who live in the accommodation and value for money for the taxpayer. The alarming truth is that the contracts do neither.

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

I represent South Belfast, where there is, obviously, a high concentration of contingency accommodation providers. I have spoken to many families who are living in squalid situations. Their food has poor nutrition. The children are restricted in how they can come and go. They cannot have friends over and have to turn the lights off by 9.00 pm etc. I want to highlight the fact that not only do those people have to live in a restrictive environment in that accommodation but they are vulnerable to criminal gangs and sexual exploitation because of the complexity of the trauma that they have experienced during their displacement and travel and the violence in their homeland.

We must do more in Northern Ireland. As the deputy First Minister indicated yesterday, while the UK Government and Mears locally are responsible for providing the accommodation, we have a responsibility to ensure that the people who seek asylum here are provided with the support services that they need.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you, Paula. That ends Members' statements.

Assembly Business

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Last Friday, the Committee on Standards and Privileges published its report on the complaint that was made against me. The Committee found that I had not breached any Assembly standards. All who value free speech and proper scrutiny in the House should welcome that finding. However, a serious concern remains.

As part of that investigation, a transcript of an interview with the Chair of the Committee for the Executive Office, Ms Bradshaw, was published. In it, she said:

"I just think that every week he comes and tries to find a way, whether it's transgenderism, whether it's against the Catholic Church, whether it's against ...".

The implication is clear: I have acted in a sectarian or prejudicial manner in the Assembly or on its Committees. I utterly reject that allegation.

I wrote to the Committee to request that that slur be rejected or that Ms Bradshaw provide evidence to back up her claim. Ms Bradshaw declined to do so. That failure is now recorded in the appendix to the Committee's report. Her unfounded accusation —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Mr Gaston —.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— is on the public record —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Mr Gaston —.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— published on the Assembly website and left uncorrected.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

It sounds as though you are making a statement. Can you get to your point of order, please? Thank you.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The public record now contains a serious slur on my character that was made without evidence and left to stand without withdrawal. What recourse is available to me through the Speaker's Office to have the record corrected? Are such remarks open to investigation by the Commissioner for Standards?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

You have your remarks on the record. That is not a point of order — it is certainly not a point of order for me — but it will be passed on to the Speaker.

Without further ado, we will move on.

Sorry. I will ask the Assembly to take its ease. Give us two minutes to change the top Table.

Committee Business

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I call Colin McGrath to move the Consideration Stage of the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill on behalf of the Assembly Commission.

Moved. — [Mr McGrath.]

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There is a single group of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in turn. The debate will be on amendment Nos 1 to 14 and opposition to clauses 3, 5 and 10 stand part, which deal with the administration of the Remuneration Board. I know that this is a bit whatever, but I will go through it.

I also remind Members intending to speak that, during the debate on the single group of amendments, they should address all of the amendments on which they wish to comment. Once the debate on the group is completed, any further amendments in the group will be moved formally as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate. The Questions on stand part will be taken at the appropriate points in the Bill. If all of that is clear, we shall proceed.

Clause 1 (Independent Financial Review Panel renamed as Remuneration Board)

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

We now come to the single group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment Nos 2 to 14 and opposition to clauses 3, 5 and 10 stand part. Within the group, amendment Nos 3 and 4 are mutually exclusive with amendment No 2, and amendment Nos 9, 10, 12 and 14 are consequential to amendment No 1.

Without further ado, I call the Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill, Phillip Brett, to move amendment No 1 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Assembly Members

I beg to move amendment No 1:

In page 1, line 3, after "the" insert "Independent".

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 2: Leave out clause 3 and insert

“Increase in salary

3A. After section 2(2) of the 2011 Act (objectives of the Panel in determining salaries of members) insert—

“(2A) In exercising its function under subsection (1)(a), the Board must ensure that any increase in the salary payable to a member of the Assembly is by a percentage that is no greater than the most recent Consumer Price Index rate of inflation as published by the Office of National Statistics.”.” — [Mr Carroll.]

No 3: In clause 3, page 2, line 5, after first “to” insert “any reduction in Members' legislative competence as a result of the application of the provisions of EU law listed in Annexes 1 to 5 of the Windsor Framework (formerly the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland) and”. — [Mr Gaston.]

No 4: In clause 3, page 2, line 8, leave out from “; and” to “Ireland)” on line 10. — [Mr Gaston.]

No 5: New Clause

After clause 3 insert

“Functions of the panel: review requirement

3A.—(1) In section 2(3)(b) of the 2011 Act (functions of the panel) after “Assembly,” insert “including but not limited to, any reduction in Members' legislative competence as a result of the application of the provisions of EU law listed in Annexes 1 to 5 of the Windsor Framework (formerly the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland)"". — [Mr Gaston.]

No 6: In clause 4, page 2, leave out lines 39 to 41 and insert

“(9) Subject to the preceding provisions of this section, a temporary appointment is to be treated for all purposes (including, for example, for the purposes of section 5) as if it were an appointment under section 4(1).” — [Mr McGrath.]

No 7: In clause 4, page 2, line 41, at end insert

“(10) But an order under subsection (7) may disapply or modify a provision of this Act (other than section 4(4)) in its application to a temporary appointment.” — [Mr McGrath.]

No 8: Leave out clause 5 and insert

“Membership

5A.—(1) In section 4 of the 2011 Act (appointments to the Panel) at the end add—

“(4) At any one time, not less than two thirds of the membership of the Board shall be current Trade Union representatives.”.

(2) In this section—

“Trade Union” has the meaning given in section 1 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.” — [Mr Carroll.]

No 9: In clause 7, page 3, line 34, before “Remuneration” insert “Independent”. — [Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill).]

No 10: In clause 7, page 3, line 39, after “The” insert “Independent”. — [Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill).]

No 11: New Clause

After clause 7 insert

“Consultation

Duty to consult

7A.—(1) The Assembly Commission shall not introduce a Bill making provision for the salaries, pensions or gratuities payable to members and former members of the Assembly unless it has taken the steps in subsections (2) to (4).

(2) The Assembly Commission shall consult—

(a) members of the Assembly,

(b) the trustees of any pension scheme established in accordance with a previous determination and still in operation,

(c) the public, and

(d) any other persons the Assembly Commission considers it is appropriate to consult.

(3) The Assembly Commission must lay before the Assembly a report of any consultation conducted under subsection (2).

(4) The members of the Assembly Commission in charge of a Bill falling within subsection (1) shall, when submitting the text of the Bill to the Presiding Officer of the Assembly in accordance with Assembly standing orders, also submit a statement in writing to confirm that a consultation has taken place on the Bill in accordance with this section.

(5) The minimum duration of any consultation required by virtue of this section shall be 12 weeks.

(6) This section does not apply where—

(a) the Assembly Commission proposes to introduce a Bill as a matter of such urgency that it would be inappropriate in the circumstances to conduct a consultation before submitting the Bill for introduction; and

(b) the Assembly has passed with cross-community support a resolution signifying its agreement to the disapplication of this section in respect of the Bill.” — [Mr Gaston.]

No 12: In clause 8, page 4, line 21, after the second “the” insert “Independent”. — [Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill).]

No 13: Leave out clause 10 and insert

“Commencement

10.—(1) Sections 1, 2 and 7 to 11 come into operation on the day after the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent.

(2) Sections 3 to 6 come into operation on the date on which—

(a) every provision of European Union law which—

(i) is listed in Annexes 1 to 5 of the Windsor Framework (formerly the Protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland), and

(ii) deals with a transferred matter within the meaning of section 4(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998,

has ceased to apply in respect of Northern Ireland; and

(b) the Northern Ireland Assembly has been granted the power to make laws, in accordance with section 5 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, dealing with the subject matter of any provision of European Union law falling within the description specified in paragraph (a).” — [Mr Gaston.]

No 14: In clause 11, page 4, line 33, before “Remuneration” insert “Independent”. — [Mr Brett (The Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill).]

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I thank you for your explanation of proceedings today. As a relatively new Member of the House, I am glad to have your expertise at the top Table to keep me right. As Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee, I take the opportunity to thank my fellow Committee members for their service to the Committee and, in particular, the support staff who serviced the Committee. I know that it is not usual practice to name officials, but this was the last serving of our Committee Clerk, Mr Jim McManus, in the House, and he has served the House diligently for many years, so I record my thanks to him. I also thank the 74 members of the public who took the opportunity to engage with the Committee.

As amendment Nos 9, 10, 12 and 14 are in my name but are consequential to amendment No 1, I will not speak directly to them, but they will be covered by my remarks on amendment No 1.

The Committee has tabled amendment No 1 in order to emphasise and, importantly, highlight the independent nature of the remuneration board. There are two legislatures on these islands where determinations on Members' salaries and pensions are made, correctly, by an independent body. They are the Independent Remuneration Board of the Welsh Senedd and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA) in Westminster. Notably, the names of both of those organisations contain the word "independent".

In its written evidence to the Committee, the Independent Remuneration Board of the Welsh Senedd highlighted that the name was deliberately chosen to emphasise that, in the exercise of its functions, the board is not subject to the direction or control of Members of the Welsh Parliament or, indeed, the Commission. That independence is valued by Members of the Senedd, as it clarifies that they are not responsible for or able to influence their salary.

During oral evidence, the chairperson of the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority informed the Committee that the authority's name was deliberately chosen to convey the message that its decisions are made independent of Parliament. The Committee, likewise, believes that it is important to emphasise the independent nature of the remuneration board and the fact that the board's determinations will not be influenced in any way by the Assembly, an Assembly Committee or the Northern Ireland Executive.

During oral evidence on 25 March, the Commission acknowledged the Committee's intention to table the amendment and stated:

"the Commission has been carefully guarding the independence of the board",

with a particular focus:

"on ... how that independence can be embodied in the Bill."

The Commission agreed that:

"having the word 'independent' in the title would emphasise the point"

that the board will make its own decisions and function independently of the Commission, the House and the Executive. The Commission was therefore content for the Committee to table the amendment to clause 1.

With regard to amendment No 2, the Committee agreed that it is important that, when making its determinations, the board should consider the current financial circumstances in Northern Ireland. However, the Committee was of the view that, as an independent body, it will ultimately be for the remuneration board to decide what criteria to apply and what comparisons to make. For that reason, the Committee agreed that, rather than seeking an amendment to clause 3, it would recommend that, when making determination on Members' salaries and pensions, the remuneration board must have regard to the wider financial circumstances of Northern Ireland, including earnings measured by the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency's (NISRA) annual survey of hours and earnings. It will be for the independent remuneration board to decide the extent to which it wishes to accept the recommendations of the Committee.

I now turn to amendment Nos 6 and 7. The Commission informed the Committee that it will seek an amendment to clause 4 to ensure that:

"the full suite of disqualification and termination provisions in Part 1 of the 2011 Act are also applied to temporary appointments",

and to:

"make clear that only one former Member could ever be a member of the board at any one time."

The Committee therefore supports amendment Nos 6 and 7.

That concludes my remarks as chair of the Ad Hoc Committee

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I speak in support of the amendments proposed by the Ad Hoc Committee. When people look at the Assembly, they expect to see fairness, transparency and a commitment to doing what is right. The Bill is an opportunity to prove that trust in public institutions still matters and that we, as MLAs, are prepared to ensure that there is independent oversight of our pay. The Bill does something fundamental: it removes the power to set salaries from MLAs and places it where it belongs — in the hands of an independent board. That is not just procedural but a correct move forward. Sinn Féin has been consistent in our belief that MLAs must not influence the level of salary that they receive. The public must have confidence that decisions are being made in the interests of good governance. The Bill is rooted in that principle.

Some of the amendments would threaten the independence of the remuneration board. The principle of the Bill should not be undermined. The public's understandable concern when politicians appear to decide their own pay is damaging. That is why independence is not just a desirable quality in the process but a requirement. The creation of a new independent remuneration board brings fairness and transparency to the process.

When salaries are decided by an external board with no political ties, we can focus on our job and serve people without being mired in debates about how much we are paid. The Bill gives us a chance to draw a clear line between personal interest and public responsibility. By placing decisions about MLA pay in independent hands, we set a standard that says, "This Assembly is ready to put fairness and integrity at its core". It is better for public confidence and for the Assembly.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I will make a few remarks, having sat on the Ad Hoc Committee, to respond to the amendments. I do not intend to repeat what I said at Second Stage about the general principles of the Bill.

Our Committee amendment for the inclusion of the word "Independent" is entirely sensible and provides clarity and confirmation of the separation of its purpose from the Assembly Commission and MLAs in setting pay.

Indeed, that is in line with what the Independent Remuneration Board of the Senedd in Wales and the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority in Westminster have done.

The Assembly Commission's amendment Nos 6 and 7, in providing for an order to tidy up the process for dealing with temporary appointments to the board, are fine.

I understand Mr Carroll's thinking behind amendment No 2. During our deliberations, I raised the issue of the remuneration board's having regard to the current financial circumstances in Northern Ireland, as I am conscious of the impact of the ongoing cost-of-living crisis on our constituents. That issue was discussed, and the Committee agreed that the best approach would be to include that suggestion for the remuneration board in the report, which is what has happened.

I will stay with Mr Carroll's amendments. I will not support amendment No 8. In the spirit of what I have just said, I wish that he had come before the Ad Hoc Committee to speak to his proposal for a new clause for trade —.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

You did not invite me.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Pardon?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

OK. Go ahead.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Had you invited me, I would have come.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Had you made a substantive submission, that would have prompted —.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

[Inaudible.]

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

No, that is how it works, Gerry. You have been here long enough to know how such things work.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

All remarks are to be made through the Chair, please.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Apologies, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Good stuff. Thank you.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I was just clarifying that we would have invited Mr Carroll to come before the Committee and that I would have welcomed the opportunity to talk about trade union involvement through consultation and engagement with the board.

To have two trade union members on the board would be excessive, but we could have looked at including a recommendation that the remuneration board explicitly engage with and consult trade union representatives as part of its deliberations. As the Member knows, clause 6 includes a catch-all provision to consult:

"any other persons the Board thinks appropriate",

and I strongly suspect that trade unions will be on its list of consultees.

Likewise, my opinion on Mr Gaston's new clause 7A, "Duty to consult", is that the remit of the aforementioned catch-all provision is sufficiently wide to allow the remuneration board to consult whomever, they feel, it is necessary to consult and, further, does not preclude them from consulting whomever they wish, should they deem it necessary to do so.

I will return to clause 3 and the provision for the remuneration board to "have regard to the salaries" of Members of other legislatures on these islands. It is worth bearing in mind that that is a sensible starting point for benchmarking. In our evidence, the Committee was advised that other legislatures' remuneration boards have regard to other institutions' salaries. That is standard practice, so we would not be an outlier in doing that. I would be interested to know what Mr Carroll and Mr Gaston would see as an alternative approach by which clarity and transparency could be provided on how the remuneration board members arrived at their final recommendation or recommendations on pay. I will put that another way: what other paid roles in the public sector, private sector or community and voluntary sector could it benchmark against, given the unique role that we play as legislators?

I was not going to speak to amendment No 4 — I was going to brush past it — but I ask Mr Gaston what his justification is for seeking to remove the reference to the Dáil and the Seanad. When I read the amendment, I thought, "Is that sectarian in nature?", and I would welcome his explanation when he gets —.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

When you get to your feet, I will give way.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

No, because you made an entirely inappropriate point of order earlier. You can address that.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Do not slur me.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I wondered —.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Order, Members. Come on.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I wondered whether he had tabled that amendment on a sectarian basis.

I will return to my point about benchmarking. There is a narrative that MLAs have fewer responsibilities than Members of other regional Assemblies across these islands. That is simply not the case, as is shown in research that the Assembly's Research and Information Service (RaISe) provided to the Ad Hoc Committee. Yes, there are variations in devolved responsibilities, but to imply that we have a lesser workload is false. We did not look at the responsibilities of the legislators elected to the regional Assemblies across these islands, as it was not our responsibility to do so. It will be up to the remuneration board to look at that issue in detail as part of its deliberations.

Mr Gaston's amendment Nos 5 and 13 are superfluous and have, I suspect, been proposed for no other reason than to make political points about the Windsor framework and our exit from the EU in order to direct them at the DUP and put it on the spot about whether it will support them.

I record my appreciation of the staff of the Ad Hoc Committee for their efficiency and effectiveness in supporting us with our Committee packs every week and organising the evidence sessions with the Assembly Commission and representatives of different legislative bodies and others.

It is worth repeating that at no time did the Committee discuss salary levels or other technical issues to dictate the deliberations of the remuneration board other than in making the suggestion that I referenced about having regard to local financial circumstances. Our focus was entirely on ensuring that the Bill provides the legislative framework to enable the Clerk of the Assembly to take forward the appointment of the board and provide support for its work.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I just want to double-check: no one from the Ulster Unionist party is down to speak.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

[Inaudible.]

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

OK. It would have been handy to let us know, Robbie.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

[Inaudible.]

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

OK. Thank you.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. My party's position has been clear throughout. We set it out firmly during the Second Stage debate, in which I spoke.

We will support the amendments tabled by the Chair of the Ad Hoc Committee: amendment Nos 1, 9, 10, 12 and 14. As has been outlined, while those amendments may appear straightforward, they serve to further strengthen the independent nature of the board. That has to form the absolute core of the Bill as it goes forward.

The Bill has, perhaps understandably, attracted some controversy, although, in truth, it should not have done so. There are those who seek to make it politically contentious, but it is crucial that the remuneration board is entirely independent. That is the intention of the Bill as introduced, and it is consistent with the principles laid out in the Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011. Nonetheless, given the importance of reinforcing the point beyond doubt, we fully support the proposals to include the word "independent" in the board's title; in fact, that is important.

We will also support amendment Nos 6 and 7, which were tabled by the Assembly Commission. Amendment No 6 proposes to remove lines 39 to 41 and replace them with the following wording:

"Subject to the preceding provisions of this section, a temporary appointment is to be treated for all purposes (including, for example, for the purposes of section 5) as if it were an appointment under section 4(1)."

The amendment provides important clarity regarding temporary appointments. It confirms that such appointments are to be treated in all respects as if they were permanent appointments made under section 4(1) of the 2011 Act, thereby ensuring that the full range of disqualification and termination provisions set out in Part 1 of that Act will apply equally to temporary members of the board. That is a necessary and welcome safeguard to protect the integrity and consistency of the board's operations.

Amendment No 7 allows the Assembly Commission to make provision by order for the temporary appointment of members to the remuneration board. While we hope that such a power will seldom need to be used, it is a sensible and prudent measure that will ensure that the Commission can act swiftly and lawfully in the face of unforeseen circumstances. It adds an important degree of flexibility to the framework without undermining the board's independence.

Together, those amendments strengthen the Bill and provide useful clarity and contingency provisions, and we are content to support them.

I turn to amendment Nos 2 and 8 in the name of Mr Carroll. Amendment No 2 would place a statutory obligation on the board when exercising its functions under subsection (1)(a) to ensure that any increase in the salary payable to a Member does not exceed:

"the most recent Consumer Price Index rate of inflation as published by the Office of [sic] National Statistics."

Whilst we understand the intention behind that amendment, particularly given the current economic climate, it undermines, in our view, one of the core purposes of the Bill, which is to safeguard the independent role of the remuneration board. One of the guiding principles behind the 2011 Act was to ensure that decisions on Members' pay were taken out of political hands and entrusted to an impartial body. Amendment No 2 would impose a rigid, externally determined cap on pay increases that would, effectively, limit the board's ability to exercise judgement on the basis of evidence and context.

That would reduce the board's role to little more than that of a formulaic calculator, a move that would cut across the very independence that the legislation seeks to achieve and enforce.

Benchmarking against other legislatures is a recognised and reasonable approach for any remuneration body to take. It enables informed, evidence-based decision-making and helps to ensure that pay reflects the responsibilities of the role whilst not deterring people from standing for election, and there are many reasons why people may be deterred from standing for election in this part of the world. That is entirely a matter for the board, which will crucially and independently determine the salary payable to Members of the Assembly. It may well be that, following careful analysis of all relevant information and evidence, the board concludes that such an approach is appropriate. However, I stress again that that decision rests solely with the independent board. In fact —

[Pause.]

I think that I have lost my place.

[Pause.]

Yes, I have indeed. I might be missing a page.

I will move on to amendment No 11, if that is OK. Amendment No 11 is unnecessary. The Bill's intention to reestablish an independent mechanism for setting Members' pay and pensions through the new remuneration board is clear. Once that board is in place, it will carry out that role without the need for further legislation. The Assembly Commission has made no indication of any intention to introduce Bills on that issue. Clause 6 already provides for a robust and transparent consultation process. It requires the board not only to publish a draft determination and consult the Assembly Commission and Members but to have a clear process in place. Adding more statutory obligations would serve only to complicate or duplicate what is already a strong independent framework.

We do not support amendment No 13. While I do not question the sincerity of the Member's concerns, his amendment fundamentally distorts the reality of the situation, perhaps conveniently so on the Member's part. The Bill provides a clear and workable commencement clause: it comes into effect the day after it receives Royal Assent. By contrast, amendment No 13 would delay key provisions until every element of EU law that is listed in the Windsor framework, which, I have to remind Members, is the child of Brexit, ceases to apply in Northern Ireland and full legislative competence is returned to the Assembly. That is not within the control of the Assembly, the Commission or any Member of this Parliament.

In practical terms, amendment No 13 would indefinitely block the core purpose of the Bill: the establishment of an independent remuneration board to carry out that important work. However, for the avoidance of doubt, the fact that we do not support it does not mean that we support the imposition of the Windsor framework. I have no doubt that the Member will attempt to claim otherwise, but he should not insult the intelligence of the electorate with his amendment. I strongly suspect that he will deliver it in that manner and context, as he has done with other proposals. Voting for amendment No 13, no matter how it is presented, will not change the Windsor framework. What it will do is further obstruct the passage of the Bill.

We will support all the amendments that were tabled by the Ad Hoc Committee and the Commission. We will reject the amendments that were tabled by Mr Carroll and Mr Gaston.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Since the Bill first came before the House and, indeed, before that, I have been clear on the matters on which it touches. Back in December, when I saw the briefing that was prepared to assist the Audit Committee in its scrutiny of the Assembly Commission's budget for 2025-26, I made clear my position on the reason for the Bill: a pay rise for MLAs. I will read out paragraph 28 to remind Members:

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

That was back in December, and it paved the way to where we are today. To whom was that helpful? Indeed, it was helpful to the MLAs who sit in the House. I have no issue with the semantics of the amendments tabled by the Assembly Commission. If the parties on the Commission want to call the board "independent", they have the numbers to vote that though. Go on ahead, because I have no plans to oppose amendment Nos 1, 9, 10, 12 and 14. If you sleep better at night because you have inserted the word "Independent", that is for you to clear with your conscience. However, I want to be on record as making it clear that there is nothing independent about the decision on whether MLAs should get a pay rise. Clause 3, which insists that MLA pay be benchmarked against pay from legislative bodies that is higher than that which is currently obtained by Members of the House, makes that clear. The dice has been loaded before it has even been rolled. The dice has been loaded in favour of MLAs receiving a pay rise, and it has been loaded by the same people who are so anxious to introduce the word "Independent" to clauses 1, 7, 8 and 11. Members, that fools no one; it does not fool the electorate.

I will now deal with my amendments to clause 3, which are on the Marshalled List. It would be one thing for MLAs to ask for additional pay if they were taking on additional responsibilities, but the reality is that Stormont has, by virtue of a vote by the majority of MLAs, decided that, in 300 areas of law, we should not be governed by the Assembly. They do not want to be governed either by the other place to which they should send elected representatives, namely Westminster. Instead, in 300 areas of law, the Assembly decided to be governed by Brussels. When asked the question, "Do you want to hand over control of something like 60% of the laws that govern your economy to a colonial power?", the answer from the Assembly was yes. To set that in context, it was not a resounding yes, but it was a yes nonetheless. Had the vote been treated like every other significant vote that has been held in the Chamber in the past 50 years, it would not have passed. The sacred Belfast Agreement states that nothing controversial or significant can be decided without the consent of both communities, yet, for that vote — arguably, the most significant vote in any Parliament or Assembly in Northern Ireland's history — that was dispensed with, was set aside and did not come into the equation. Today, in spite of surrendering 300 areas of law to our colonial masters in Brussels, which has not happened in any other legislature, some in the House want us to benchmark ourselves against those legislatures. Well, here we go. It makes no sense to pay people 19% more for doing less work. MLAs will still have a more limited legislative role than would otherwise be the case because of the wretched protocol. That is an argument for not increasing MLA pay at all. MLAs voted —

Daniel McCrossan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Yes. Go ahead.

Daniel McCrossan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

I thank the Member for giving way. In the interest of fact, it is important to point out that the House has more legislative authority than the Welsh Parliament does. I put that on the record, because you are missing the point to suit your own agenda.

It is also worth pointing out that, while Mr Gaston feels so strongly about this, his party leader accepted a pay increase in April. Guess what? I have struggled to find a single word of complaint from the TUV about that increase in salary to up to £93,904 per year. Amazing.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

You miss the point that Mr Allister has taken up the role and is being paid to do the job that he is doing. My goodness, look at what we have here: in annex 2 of the protocol, there are 300 areas of law — laws that should be governed by either this House or Westminster — on which you have given away power.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Mr Gaston.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

You do not care. You gave it away.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Order, Mr Gaston. I ask you to address the amendment. This is not a debate on the protocol. I will be listening very carefully to check whether you just throw in the word "amendment" and then talk about something else. I will just warn you of that in advance. Thank you. You can continue.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Thank you very much, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, for reining me in and bringing me back to where we should be. However, I am talking about the amendment. My amendment touches on the protocol, so I believe that what I have said is in scope. If other Members try to take me away and distance the debate from the amendment, I hope that you will pay close attention to what they say. My amendment gives me the opportunity to open up a debate about the protocol and make it clear that, while Members want a pay rise, the Assembly decided to give away power on 300 areas of law. MLAs voted for that arrangement, knowing that it would result in their constituents being subject, in 300 areas, to laws that are made by a two-chamber legislature in which they are not represented. Those constituents are represented in neither the European Parliament, the lower chamber, nor the Council of Ministers, the upper chamber.

Not only does it make no sense to pay MLAs more for doing less but the House has chosen to act recklessly by voting in a way that agreed to laws being made for our constituents by a legislature that they knew would not represent our constituents.

They knew that, in that legislature to which they voted to submit their constituents, there would be legislators elected to represent the people of Estonia, Bulgaria, France and Spain — my goodness — but there would be no one to stand up for the development of legislation to represent the people of Northern Ireland. That was a decision taken by the Assembly, knowing where we are today. The House knew exactly what it was voting for. It had the opportunity to say no, but it knew better and instead voted yes. It is doubtful that any legislator anywhere in the world who is entrusted with the right to represent his or her constituents should ever have agreed to their disenfranchisement in that way. At a time when trust in politics is low, that is an appalling way for an elected politician to treat their constituents whilst planning for a pay rise in the background.

I will not detain the House by rehearsing the arguments in relation to amendment No 4, but linked to amendment Nos 3 and 4 and perhaps requiring a little more explanation is amendment No 13, which should be supported by any Member who opposes the protocol. I note Mr Butler's opposition to it, but I will set out my reasons why. In essence, that amendment would mean that any pay rise for MLAs is suspended until such times as the protocol has gone. Only when the House has seen the powers that have been surrendered to Brussels returned to Stormont and Westminster will Members see the provisions of the Bill come into operation. I say this to fellow unionist Members: this is your opportunity to put the pressure on the pro-protocol parties in the House, prove the TUV wrong and show that, when we claim that this place is a racket where people are just interested in their pay packet, we are mistaken.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Mr Gaston —.

Daniel McCrossan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

Will the Member give way?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Sorry, I am going to raise a point of order here. I have given you a lot of latitude. I have also given you advance warning. I respectfully request that you now focus on the board's functions in relation to your amendment. This is not an opportunity for you to make an open-ended speech on the protocol.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I will bring my remarks on amendment No 4 to an end and continue with my previous remarks. Amendment No 13 would stop any pay rise for MLAs while the protocol remains, but do not stop there. Make it clear that, unless the amendment is built into the Bill, you will refuse to support it. That is my challenge to unionism in the House. Put some pressure on the nationalist and republican alliance, which ripped up the Belfast Agreement to impose the protocol on us.

Forgive me for dancing about somewhat. I will go back to the Marshalled List of amendments and amendment No 4. That amendment seeks to remove reference to the houses of Parliament in the Irish Republic from the bodies that the board must have regard to when considering MLA pay. To justify that, I refer Members to the opening text of the Bill and, in fact, of any Bill that is introduced to the House:

"BE IT ENACTED by being passed by the Northern Ireland Assembly and assented to by His Majesty".

Northern Ireland is, as the Bill acknowledges, part of His Majesty's United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Why any unionist would seek to dilute that by introducing reference to a foreign Parliament is beyond me. If you want to benchmark pay against other parts of the UK, that is one thing, but to introduce a foreign Parliament where a Government hold office that make no secret of the fact that they want Northern Ireland to cease to exist is yet another unnecessary way of linking this part of the UK to the Republic. That is not sectarian, Ms Bradshaw. Once again, you have thrown out a number of slurs and produced no evidence to back them up.

I will go back to the amendment.

Daniel McCrossan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

I thank the Member for giving way. It is important to point out what is realistic in the comparisons that are made. We share this island with the Irish jurisdiction, and people consider this to be one island. You talked about the Good Friday Agreement, Mr Gaston, but you would do well to respect the wishes and views of people in this House when it comes to that, instead of being so dismissive.

I am not a fan of abstentionism, but there is a suggestion that could unite the House. If Mr Gaston feels so aggrieved by all the things that have gone on, we would be unanimous in supporting him as an abstentionist from this place.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

That takes away your argument about Sinn Féin being abstentionists at Westminster. My goodness, I know that you would appreciate that. I know that Sinn Féin, the SDLP and their helpers in the Alliance Party would appreciate that this voice would not be heard, but I do not want to give them that pleasure. I will be here for as long as I am co-opted into this seat. I will seek —.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Order, Members. I remind you that this is a debate on the remuneration board. It is not a constitutional debate. It is good craic, I am sure, but can you get back to the subject?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

That brings me back to my earlier point. I am trying to focus on the Bill, but other Members seem intent on pulling me in other directions.

[Laughter.]

It is OK for SDLP Members to acknowledge the Belfast Agreement when it suits, but when it came to the protocol, they were happy, when it was stacked in their favour, to set it aside with no cross-community vote needed.

Moving on, I will leave it to the Member for West Belfast to develop the case for his amendment No 8, but he can be assured of my support. As the Marshalled List makes clear, I will oppose the question that clause 5 stand part of the Bill. I am doing so for no other obvious reason than that former Members of this place are likely to remain on very good terms with their colleagues. It is highly likely that they will stand and still be members of the parties that they once represented. Some may claim that that is what is happening at Westminster. Well, if we are going to bring the Westminster model here, why is the Bill not wide enough to permit the amendments that I tabled, which would have seen Westminster-style penalties for the abuse of the expenses system?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Mr Gaston, we all have party support to help us to prepare for a debate, but I encourage you and your party support to get some training. You are challenging the Chair's ruling on the admissibility of amendments, and it is not the first time that you have done it. If you continue in that vein, I will ask you to take your seat. Thank you.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

You will be pleased to hear that that brings my remarks on that issue to an end.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Yes.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Principal Deputy Speaker for raising that issue. When I looked at some of the amendments that were permitted, I thought that the Speaker's Office had been incredibly generous. Is the Member able to point to any clauses in the Bill that would stop an independent body from considering anything that he has put forward? I know that there is a Member who wants to strip the absolute independence of the board away and has previously offered advice and direction to a panel. We have sought not to give any direction to the panel. Is there anything that the Member can state that would stop an independent panel from considering the things that he has suggested? Is he, or the Member for West Belfast, putting on the record that, in the event of any pay rise, they will not take anything beyond the CPI?

[Interruption.]

As has been suggested today so far, I find calling into question why this is being brought forward and the morals of Members of the House quite repulsive.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Two things, Mr Butler. Your wee challenge to me has also been noted, albeit it was more subtle than Mr Gaston's. I am noting that. Interventions are meant to be brief, even in legislative debates. I am telling you. If your party wants to put other Members up, I will be grateful if you let us know, and then you can put them up, OK? We are all trying to get through this as best we can.

Mr Gaston, I invite you to bring your remarks to a conclusion, as you said that you would.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker. I do not want to be distracted but, in that vein, I have been quite generous in letting people in. I sense that I am running close to the wire, and your patience seems to be getting tested with some of this, so I will finish my remarks by talking about amendment No 11.

The new clause that would be created by amendment No 11 places a duty on the Commission to consult on any Bill that makes provision for salaries, pensions and gratuities to MLAs or former MLAs. The amendment would place a duty on the Commission to consult MLAs, trustees of the pension scheme, the public and any other people whom the Commission considers appropriate. It places a duty on the Commission to publish a report on the outcome of that consideration and sets the period for consultation at 12 weeks.

There is a need to bring in this new clause. Yes, people might take it for granted and say, "Well, sure, that is what we do for all Bills in this House". Well, this has been the need. Yes, it should be standard practice. It was actually Mr Butler who raised this in his opening remarks. Look at this Bill and benchmark it against the 12 weeks, which is the norm. I raised this before. The consultation was open for 11 weeks, and two of them were over the Christmas holidays, so this Bill failed to meet the 12-week benchmark. That is why I felt the need. Yes, it should be something that is taken for granted and should be built into every Bill as common practice, but, unfortunately, with this Bill, the consultation that ran did not meet the threshold, hence the need to bring in this new clause to make it a statutory duty in future. In fact, the Bill Office, in discussions, was unaware of such clauses being built into other Bills, and that is why I have outlined that there is a simple reason for this amendment.

Consultation is such a natural part of the legislative process that such clauses are considered unnecessary, but when it came to the Bill before the House today, prior to First Reading, no one outside the parties on the Commission had had sight of it. That would not be the case with an Executive or private Member's Bill, so why should it be the case for a Bill on Assembly pay? That is such an underhand way of operating, and it did nothing for the credibility of this Assembly. It does nothing to build confidence between MLAs and their electorate. In fact, the electorate would argue that there is stronger public interest in consulting on Bills of this nature than others, and that is why I strongly believe that we need to build in the 12-week consultation and ensure that those outside the Commission are being consulted. It is not good enough that matters such as this are debated in the House by the Commission until it publishes a completed Bill only after it is moved at First Stage. My amendment opens the door to more transparency in the Assembly and more input from the House and the public. Anyone who opposes this amendment will have to tell the public why they believe that the public should have no say in the setting of MLA pay and allowances.

I want to close with a final observation. To my mind, the Bill and the amendments in the Marshalled List do not address an issue of concern for the public. In fact, when it came to the only chance for the public to have any say in the Bill during the Committee Stage, 69% of responses either disagreed or strongly disagreed that the board should have regard to the salaries paid to Members of other legislatures. Ask the public about the abuse of the expenses system in this place, and I have no doubt that you will find widespread support. When it comes to the matter that I raised, it is with deep regret, as I said, that the amendments tabled were not considered. That was a missed opportunity to restore confidence in this tainted system.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Mr Gaston, I remind you again that you were challenging the Speaker by talking about amendments that were not chosen, and that was the second time that you had done that. I am just putting that on the record. It was disrespectful.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

The Ad Hoc Committee makes a recommendation that the board must have regard to the wider financial circumstances of the North. You would presume that those would be the same financial circumstances that mean that pensioners are sitting freezing in their homes during winter, the circumstances that led to 90,000 emergency food parcels being delivered to families last year — over twice as many as five years ago — or the fact that, in the news today, we see that the North's top 100 businesses made pre-tax profits of £2·5 billion.

The North's financial circumstances have served to line the pockets of a few extremely wealthy people and companies, but, for the vast majority of ordinary people, the financial circumstances here mean poverty and deprivation. A pay increase for MLAs that gives more weight to politicians' inflated salaries in other jurisdictions than to the everyday experiences of those whom we represent would be completely unfair, not to mention tone-deaf, hence my opposition to clause 3.

It is worth elaborating on a point that was kept quiet by defenders of the process. When the public were consulted, almost 70% of respondents to the call for evidence disagreed or strongly disagreed with the proposal for the board to have regard to salaries paid to politicians in other jurisdictions. Despite what the Member for South Belfast said about my not going before the Committee, the Committee ignored the view of the public, and that is contemptible, to be perfectly honest. Despite the strength of public opinion, the provision remains in the Bill. The voice of the public does not matter. Lip service has been paid once again. No matter how often and how loudly MLAs have protested in prior debates, the provision is paving the way for a completely unjustified pay increase, and I challenge people who say the contrary.

To repeat, band 3 health and social care (HSC) workers have a starting salary of just over £24,000 a year, while administrative officers (AOs) in the Civil Service start on £23,000 a year, if they can get through the interview process without the computer system crashing. That is not to mention the hundreds of thousands of retail and hospitality workers on zero-hours contracts and minimum wage being forced to work longer on Sundays. My amendment No 2 would also limit increases to the rate of CPI inflation, which acts as a restraint on the board in case there is a temptation or pressure applied to increase salaries by a disproportionate and unreasonable amount, not that an independent board would ever dream of doing that, of course. CPI inflation in the year up to March 2025 was 2·6%, which is a much more reasonable increase than a potential 38%, 28% or 18% hike, or whatever percentage hike may come down the track.

For the benefit of the Member for Lagan Valley, I will say that I take the average wage of people in my constituency, so, for the record, I do not get that money.

When giving evidence to the Ad Hoc Committee, the Assembly Commission said that it was reasonable to benchmark pay against comparable employment rather than against an unrelated field, but that fails to consider the role of an elected representative. We are here to represent our constituents, not, as some think, to be above them and earn far more than them. At the most basic level, we need to have some practical understanding of the everyday lives and struggles of the people whom we represent. A salary of £70,000 or more would make MLAs become out of touch and disconnected from reality, and some are already there.

Daniel McCrossan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

I thank the Member for giving way. Does that mean that his TDs in the South, just down the road from where I live, are out of touch, given the €115,000 that they accept?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

The Member may not understand, but our party policy is to accept the average wage of workers.

Daniel McCrossan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

[Inaudible.]

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Your party does not do that, so that is for you to explain.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Through the Chair, please.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Listen if you will and check the website, or do what you want.

I know that the Member is perhaps passionate about getting that pay increase, but it is worth pointing out how disgraceful it would be.

Daniel McCrossan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

You should, but you refuse it.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

You will take it, and your party will take it, so perhaps you will be opposition for a time.

I will move on. Another argument in favour of massive pay hikes for MLAs, and perhaps the Member for Strabane will agree, is —.

Daniel McCrossan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, West Tyrone)

West Tyrone.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Apologies, West Tyrone. Another argument is that they will attract the right kind of people. The Member for Lagan Valley Mr Butler said that. The question, however, is this: what kind of people do the public want to be their representatives? Ordinary people and the people whom I talk to in the real world do not want bankers or big business CEOs as their representatives. Plenty of people from high-flying private-sector backgrounds have entered politics, only to tank the economy, such as Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss, to name but two in recent years. The UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rachel Reeves, used to work for the Bank of England and is now pushing hundreds of millions —.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Gerry, will you return to your amendment, please?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Yes, I will do.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

The point that I am making is that being on a higher wage does not mean that an MP, an MLA or any other public representative has the skills and knowledge to make people's lives better. By my argument, and in most people's view, it means that they are less likely to understand the daily struggles of the people whom they represent. That is why it was easy for the Labour Party to cut the winter fuel payment.

On the removal of the power to determine the allowances, an independent board is, rightly, considered necessary for setting MLAs' salaries, and it is important that salaries are set fairly, objectively and with no interference from people who have a material interest in the outcome. This legislation deems it appropriate for salaries to be set by an independent board, yet MLAs will have responsibility for setting their own staffing and office cost expenditure via the Assembly Commission. There is no independence in that process whatsoever. It does not matter that the Assembly passed a resolution to confer those powers back to the Commission back in 2020; we have an opportunity now to correct that and admit that the determination of allowances needs objectivity and independence. Adequate provision for staff maternity allowance, disability access to offices and the lifting of restrictions on office signage are, obviously, positive things to be welcomed, but they were addressed in 2020.

It is also worth emphasising that the majority of people who responded to the Committee's call for evidence — 53% — disagreed that powers to determine allowances should be set by MLAs themselves rather than an independent board. Yet again, parties want to plough ahead and ignore the views of the people. When people are asked for their views, the Committee and the parties here do not want to take them on board.

In Wales and in Westminster, the same independent board sets pay and allowances for politicians. Why should it be any different in Stormont? In its evidence to the Ad Hoc Committee, the Commission stated that allowing the board to make determinations on MLAs' expenses would result in the board being bogged down with work, with considerable cost to the public purse. Pull the other one. Surely one of the main aims of the independent remuneration board is to achieve good value for public money, not a stitch-up. Given that Ministers have no problem jet-setting around the world to events and conferences with no tangible outcomes and staying in opulent five-star hotels, it is hard to believe that some Executive parties are genuinely concerned about cost to the public purse.

On the membership and independence of the remuneration board, 81% of people who responded to the call for evidence — another high number — agreed or strongly agreed that MLAs' salaries and pensions should be set by an independent board rather than the Assembly Commission. Despite that, the Bill makes provision for a former MLA to take a seat on the independent board. There is no independence there if a former MLA is sitting on it. Ask anybody outside this Building and they will say the same. Former MLAs on the remuneration board will have responsibility for setting the salaries of their party colleagues as well as their own pensions. Scratch my back and I will scratch yours.

People Before Profit supports the principle of a remuneration board that is truly independent. That is not what is being proposed with this Bill. As it stands, given that a former MLA can, and, if the amendments do not pass, likely will, be a member of the independent remuneration board, it is independent only in name. My amendment restores some independence and requires at least two thirds of the board to be made up of active trade union representatives. For all the positive talk about trade unions in this place, parties are seemingly going to vote against that amendment. How many times in this place have parties in the Executive restricted the pay of workers and trade unions, yet they do not want them to have any say over the pay or allowances of MLAs?

I am happy to support amendment No 11 in the name of the Member for North Antrim, who made some very important points about parties wanting to shut down public consultation on this process. I support the amendments in my name.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I call Colin McGrath, who is speaking on behalf of the Assembly Commission.

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

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the amendments that have been tabled to the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill on behalf of the Assembly Commission. I express the thanks of the Assembly Commission to the Chairperson and all members who served on the Ad Hoc Committee that was appointed to scrutinise the Bill.

From the outset, we have recognised that this is not a piece of legislation that will win Members any popularity contests. However, the Committee Stage has been important in allowing new sets of eyes to scrutinise the Bill and examine it in detail. That process has also been helpful in dealing with some of the more misleading commentary on the Bill. The Assembly Commission appeared before the Committee twice and dealt with a number of additional points via correspondence. Therefore, it is appropriate that the Assembly Commission acknowledges the work that was undertaken by the members and staff of the Committee.

Before I proceed to deal with the amendments in detail, it is worth highlighting a theme that runs through them, and I will return repeatedly to it. The central purpose of the Bill is to ensure that arrangements are in place for the salaries and pensions of Members to be determined independently.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

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

So early on, but go on ahead.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Thank you. If former MLAs can sit on the board, how can the Member justify saying that such a board will be independent? If you stepped down as an MLA tomorrow, you could sit on it and set the pay of your colleagues. How is that independent?

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

It is independent because that person will not get any financial benefit from it. They are not setting their own wage, but they will bring a depth of understanding of the role. Some Members said that there should not be any understanding of the role in determining how the job is undertaken. If you have somebody there who has undertaken the work and understands, having done the job, what it is about, that allows for a certain breadth of experience to be brought. However, because that person will not benefit from the determinations that are made, of course the board is independent. That is logical.

Whilst there are varying options for provisions that could be included in the Bill, the Assembly Commission has been focused on protecting the independence of the remuneration board and avoiding provisions that would reduce its ability to make its own decisions. That principle underpins the position of the Assembly Commission on many of the amendments being debated today.

I want, first, to turn to amendment Nos 6 and 7, which the Assembly Commission itself tabled. Clause 4 inserts new section 6A into the Assembly Members (Independent Financial Review and Standards) Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 — the 2011 Act — which makes provisions for temporary appointments to the board. However, following the introduction of the Bill, it occurred to the Assembly Commission that there was a potential issue with the same disqualification and other such provisions as applied to permanent appointments not applying to temporary appointments. The Assembly Commission therefore tabled amendment Nos 6 and 7 to avoid that discrepancy occurring. Amendment No 6 amends clause 4 and substitutes new section 6A(9) with wording that provides:

"a temporary appointment is to be treated for all purposes",

including disqualification from the board,

"as if it were an appointment under section 4(1).'."

of the 2011 Act. The amendment puts more detail in the Bill on temporary appointments and ensures that the full suite of disqualification and termination provisions in Part 1 of the 2011 Act also applies to temporary appointments.

Amendment No 7 to clause 4 adds new section 6A(10) to the 2011 Act. That allows the Assembly Commission to make provision for temporary appointments to the remuneration board by order. That is included as a precaution to enable the Assembly Commission to deal with unforeseen circumstances. The new section 6A(10) is included to make clear that the Assembly Commission's powers to make such orders cannot be used to modify the application of new section 4(4) of the 2011 Act, which states that only one former Member of the Assembly can be a member of the remuneration board at any one time.

The Assembly Commission engaged with the Ad Hoc Committee on those amendments. The Ad Hoc Committee sought clarification on which Committee would be asked to scrutinise any order brought forward by the Assembly Commission under this legislation in relation to temporary appointment. The Assembly Commission clarified that the Audit Committee would, it believed, be the appropriate Committee to scrutinise any such order, given its existing role in the Assembly Commission's budget. The Assembly Commission communicated that to the Audit Committee, and we are grateful that the Ad Hoc Committee indicated that it is content to support amendment Nos 6 and 7.

I turn now to amendment Nos 1, 9, 10, 12 and 14, tabled by the Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee. Those amendments insert the word "Independent" into the name of the remuneration board. The Ad Hoc Committee engaged with the Assembly Commission on its intention to introduce those amendments. Section 3 of the 2011 Act makes clear that the board would not be subject to the direction or control of the Assembly or the Assembly Commission. As I said, the Assembly Commission is focused on the detail of the Bill to ensure that the independence of the remuneration board is maintained and embodied in how it operates.

However, in its previous engagement, the Assembly Commission indicated to the Ad Hoc Committee that, if it was of the view that adding the word "Independent" to the remuneration board's title would be helpful to emphasise its independence, the Assembly Commission was prepared to accept that view. The Assembly Commission is therefore content to support amendment Nos 1, 9, 10, 12 and 14.

I now turn to amendment No 2, tabled by Mr Carroll, which seeks to amend clause 3. It has been the Assembly Commission's view that requiring the remuneration board to have regard to the salaries payable to Members of other legislatures is a reasonable benchmarking measure that any such body would expect to carry out when reviewing salary levels. It would help the remuneration board to achieve the objective set out in section 2(2) of the 2011 Act, namely to have:

" a level of remuneration which— (i) fairly reflects the complexity and importance of their functions as members of the Assembly".

It would not prevent the remuneration board from taking account of other factors as it sees fit.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I thank the Member for giving way again. What is the Member's assessment of the fact that, in the call for evidence, 69% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that the board should have regard to the salaries paid by legislatures in other jurisdictions?

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

My assessment is that that figure is probably quite low. If you talk to people about MLAs' salaries, 100% of them would probably say that we are paid too much. That is, of course, their view, but it is not the reality that is set out in legislation. We have to find a board that can conduct itself independently to find a level that, it feels, is appropriate — it is not us; we are not going to decide what our salary level will be — and the Bill is about establishing that independent board.

The level of inflation at a given time will, undoubtedly, be a factor for the remuneration board to take into consideration. However, amendment No 2 would fundamentally restrict the board's independence and limit the scope of its decisions in a number of ways. If amendment No 2 were accepted and it were made a requirement for the remuneration board not to exceed the most recent rate of inflation, that would have the predominant weight in determining its decisions. However, once the remuneration board has concluded its initial review and taken a decision on a reasonable level of salary for a Member, the board will have the option to decide that an increase in line with inflation should follow in the years after. The key point is that, if the independence of the remuneration board is to be meaningful, the decisions are for it alone to take on the basis of all the factors that, it thinks, are relevant without its hands being tied.

Ultimately, if amendment No 2 were passed, the purpose of the Bill would be undermined, as there would be no need to establish and resource the remuneration board. An annual inflationary increase could be provided for without the structures to review and determine the appropriate levels for Members. It is interesting to note that, if we look back to 10 years ago, when there was last a rise in MLAs' wages, we see that the consumer price index is around 30%. That would have meant a £15,000 increase for MLAs in the past 10 years — that is what would happen if the amendment had been in place from that time. That is not a level that I would want to have accepted for the past period. Maybe that is what the proposer of the amendment was looking for. The Assembly Commission, therefore, opposes amendment No 2.

With your indulgence, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I will now address amendment Nos 3, 5 and 13 together. Those amendments all raise issues that relate to the Windsor framework and essentially connect to the political point that Mr Gaston has made at earlier stages of the Bill about the impact of the Windsor framework on the legislative responsibilities of the Assembly. It is Mr Gaston's prerogative to focus on those issues. The Assembly Commission has had no part in the creation, detail or future of the Windsor framework and will not take a position on such an issue, which is outside of its responsibilities. However, I return to the points that amendment Nos 3 and 5 would limit the discretion of the remuneration board and impact on its independence by making issues around the Windsor framework a predominant factor that influences and determines its decisions.

The law-making powers of each legislature in these islands vary. The Bill gives the remuneration board full discretion to take account of the legislative responsibilities of the Assembly and its Members in any benchmarking or other exercise that it undertakes. However, it is a disproportionate approach to tie the operation and decision-making of the remuneration board to an issue outside of its control, the control of the Assembly Commission and, indeed, the control of the Assembly. From a technical perspective, the Assembly Commission is also concerned that amendment Nos 3 and 5 could be considered legally deficient, as legislative competence attaches to the Assembly rather than to individual Members.

Like amendment Nos 3 and 5, amendment No 13 would tie the operation of the Bill to the Windsor framework. The Bill will come into effect on the day after the day that it receives Royal Assent. Amendment No 13 would predicate the commencement of key provisions of the Bill on matters related to the Windsor framework. It would postpone those provisions for at least four years until the next vote on the democratic consent process. It is unreasonable to tie the operation of the Bill to those issues, so the Assembly Commission opposes amendment Nos 3, 5 and 13.

Clause 3 inserts a new provision into section 2 of the 2011 Act and would impose a requirement on the remuneration board to have regard to the salaries payable to Members of other legislatures. As I have stated previously, the Assembly Commission believes that that is a reasonable measure to ensure that the remuneration board is informed by benchmarking against the salary levels awarded to legislators in other places and is one that it is likely to undertake, whether it is in the Bill or not.

Amendment No 4 would remove all reference to the Houses of the Oireachtas and, I assume, is politically motivated from Mr Gaston's perspective. Again, that is his right. However, when the Assembly Commission gave specific consideration to the bodies that are included in that clause, it was not motivated by party political considerations. The Assembly Commission included all the legislatures in these islands with which the Assembly most frequently engages. That would give the remuneration board a number of comparators of differing scale and legislative responsibilities. Removing the Houses of the Oireachtas would therefore limit the scope of the comparators that could be considered.

The amendment is also arguably legislatively ineffective, as it would not prevent the remuneration board expanding a benchmarking exercise that it wished to undertake or making its own decision to review the provision for Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas. Finally, from a political perspective, it could be argued that Mr Gaston's amendment is inconsistent with his previous positions. He has previously argued that clause 3 and the requirement to "have regard to" the salaries in other legislatures would inevitably lead to a significant pay rise for Members. However, in tabling amendment No 4, he now seems to seek only to remove specific institutions from that clause rather than to oppose the concept of benchmarking as a whole. Therefore, the Assembly Commission opposes amendment No 4.

Clause 5 amends paragraph 1 of schedule 1 to the 2011 Act to remove former membership of the Assembly as grounds for disqualification from membership of the remuneration board. The Assembly Commission considers that to be an important element of the Bill, as it allows the potential for the insight of a former Member's first-hand experience to add value to the remuneration board's work. However, the appointment of a former Member is optional: it is not required. A balance of perspectives is retained by allowing a potential maximum of only one former Member to serve on the remuneration board at any one time.

Mr Carroll's amendment No 8 is very different and takes a different approach to the appointment of trade union representatives on the remuneration board. Not only does it require that a trade union representative be appointed to the board but it requires that a majority of the members of the remuneration board be trade union representatives. The Bill does not prevent trade union representatives serving on the remuneration board. I am happy to make it clear that the Assembly Commission has no objection in principle to the possibility of trade union representatives serving on the remuneration board. However, they will be subject to the same independent process of appointment as others, which will see the best candidates from the open recruitment process being appointed on merit. Amendment No 8 would significantly restrict the potential membership of the remuneration board. The Assembly Commission has a concern that it would limit the pool of applicants who could apply.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

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

Of course.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

The Member is being kind in giving way. He talks about limiting the pool. I remind him that there are over 250,000 trade unionists in the North, so that is a lot of people for the Committee and the panel to choose from.

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

Thank you, and there are also 1·6 million-odd who cannot apply for it, which seems a bit unfair as well. However, I do not mind giving way; it gives me a break from a long speech.

Amendment No 8 requires trade union representatives to be appointed as a majority of members on the board but is silent on the specific professional experience or skills that they should bring to the remuneration board.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for giving way. I was hoping that Mr Carroll would bring that up in his speech. I was unsure as to the purpose of trade union representation. As a former trade union representative in the Northern Ireland Fire and Rescue Service, when I lobbied on pay issues, I was representing the members — the firefighters. That is my understanding of what trade union reps do. Perhaps the Member for West Belfast will clarify that through you and through the Chair: whom would the trade union representatives actually represent, when the Bill deals with remuneration for Members?

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

I thank the Member for his intervention. I think that the approach that is being taken by the Commission is the best one. It is open to everybody, trade union representatives and all; in fact, I hope that there will be trade union representatives on the board. I hope that they apply. They have unique skills that can contribute to this type of work. They understand the importance of a fair and decent wage for everybody. They have a lot of experience that they could bring to it. The issue is with their having the majority of seats on the board. If we have an open and transparent process, it is better that the board be populated with people of different backgrounds rather than just the one background, more or less. As I say, that approach could narrow the range of skills available to the board in performing its functions.

The 2011 Act disqualifies certain categories from applying to join the remuneration board to avoid conflicts of interest. That is very different from requiring the majority of the remuneration board to have one specific requirement that would prevent the majority of the population from applying. While appointments to the remuneration board are not ministerial appointments, there is also a risk that the amendment would be contrary to key elements of the requirement of the code of practice previously published by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, including on the grounds of equality, diversity, merit and proportionality. Neither the Assembly nor the Assembly Commission should want to encourage such an approach. The Assembly Commission therefore opposes amendment No 8.

Amendment No 11, tabled by Mr Gaston, deals with the issue of consultation. The Assembly Commission has previously clarified that it took account of a number of factors in its approach to the Bill, including the fact that the Assembly had approved a resolution in June 2020 that called for Members' salaries and pensions to be determined independently and that an earlier version of the Bill was subsequently introduced. I note that the Ad Hoc Committee invited responses to inform its scrutiny of the Bill. Amendment No 11 would place a requirement to consult on any future Bill.

There are, however, practical and legal issues with amendment No 11. First, the intention of the Bill is to set up the remuneration board and re-establish an independent mechanism to determine Members' salaries. The remuneration board will determine the level of salaries. Once its decisions are made, they will be implemented. There will therefore be no need for the Assembly Commission to introduce a further Bill on those issues, and it has no intention of doing so. Clause 6 requires the remuneration board to publish a draft determination outlining any decisions that it is considering making and allows it to consult on the draft with any other persons whom it considers appropriate. Therefore, there is already a provision that would permit public consultation on the issue of Members' salaries in the future, if the remuneration board considered it valuable.

The more significant issue is that there is a risk that amendment No 11 is likely to take the Bill outside the legislative competence of the Assembly. Part 2 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 states that the Assembly may make law in accordance with the relevant provisions of that Part. Part 2 is an excepted matter. The Assembly cannot pass Acts that deal with matters covered by Part 2 of the 1998 Act. Amendment No 11 is concerned with the way in which the Assembly makes laws. It introduces conditions for the introduction of legislation that are not set out in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. That deals with the subject matter of Part 2 of the Act, which sets out the only limitations on the plenary power of the Assembly to make laws. The amendment deals with an excepted matter and would potentially jeopardise the passage of the Bill into law.

Amendment No 11 also has the potential to undermine the exercise of the Assembly's statutory functions as set out in section 47 of the 1998 Act in relation to the remuneration of Members. That may also create a risk of the Bill's being referred to the UK Supreme Court. I also note that it is a constitutional principle that an Assembly cannot bind its successors, which would be the effect of amendment No 11. The Assembly Commission therefore opposes amendment No 11.

I appreciate that I have taken some time to go through the detail of the amendments.

In summary, the Assembly Commission commends its own amendment Nos 6 and 7 to the House and supports amendment Nos 1, 9, 10, 12 and 14 from the Ad Hoc Committee. The Assembly Commission also supports retaining clauses 3, 5 and 10 in the Bill. The Assembly Commission looks forward to considering the decisions that Members take today in advance of the Further Consideration Stage of the Bill occurring in due course.

I hope that it is noted, as I conclude, that I got through the entire speech without using "renumeration" and stuck to "remuneration", which I think was an achievement.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Much appreciated, Colin. Thank you. I call the Chairperson of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Assembly Members (Remuneration Board) Bill, Mr Phillip Brett, to make a winding-up speech.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank all Members who took part in what was a wide-ranging debate. We covered many issues in the Bill and indeed issues that are far outside the scope of the Bill. It was a useful discussion, and I thank those who contributed, including, first, my vice-chair, Ms Mason, who rightly highlighted the fact that the legislation will remove the power for MLAs to set their own salary. I do not think that any Member in the House wants MLAs to have a role in setting their own salary. It is absolutely correct that the Consideration Stage passes today.

I confirm that the remarks made by Ms Bradshaw were entirely correct: there was no request from the Member for West Belfast Mr Carroll to come along to give evidence to the Ad Hoc Committee.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I will happily give way.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

I would also like to put on record that no request came from Mr Gaston either.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

There was no request from any Member of the House to come along to the Committee to give evidence. Members also had the opportunity to provide written evidence, had their diaries not permitted them to come in person. Again, that was not received.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I thank the Member for giving way. How does he respond to the fact that, in the call for evidence, 69% of respondents disagreed or strongly disagreed that the board should have regard to salaries paid to Members in other jurisdictions? If the Member was so keen to hear my views, and I thank him for that, I refer him to what I said in the Second Stage debate on the Bill.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Mr Carroll, I shall come to your remarks later; probably the most substantial of my remarks will address some of the mistruths that you spoke earlier in the debate.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I will happily give way.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Just so that we are absolutely clear and, potentially, for the Member to correct the record: we did put in a written submission.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Thank you, Timothy, for that. You did put in a written submission. The point that I made was in relation to Mr Carroll.

I welcome Mr Gaston's support for the amendments in my name on behalf of the Committee. They are supported by all Members of the House. When the Member for West Belfast spoke, he did not indicate, one way or the other, whether he supported the amendments in the name of the Ad Hoc Committee, but it is useful to put on the record that no Member outlined their opposition to the Committee's amendments, and that reflects the importance of those amendments.

I want to respond to some of the more political points that were made during the discussion. The Member for North Antrim Mr Gaston said that amendment No 13 in his name was a "challenge" from the TUV to other unionists. I do not need a challenge from any other unionist, either inside or outside the House. I am very clear in my unionism, very confident in my unionism. The people of North Belfast elected me and gave me a mandate to speak for them, and I will take no lectures nor any diatribes from any Member of the House who is trying to challenge the credentials of my unionism.

I turn now to the remarks by the "person before profit" Member for West Belfast, Mr Carroll. In the first of his remarks, he outlined that the Committee was trying to keep quiet the findings of its deliberations. I know that the Member may not do detail, but there is a 43-page report that the Committee produced. I would encourage the Member for West Belfast to read it. He then went on to articulate that he takes the average salary. He also implied that he does not draw down the full salary. Let us be very clear: Mr Carroll does draw down the entirety of his £52,500 salary. What he then does with that, whether he donates it to his political party or to any other of his Marxist causes, that is a matter for him. Let us be very clear, however: he does take the full salary offered by the Assembly.

The Member for West Belfast made disgraceful remarks about clause 5. He said that the clause was a case of "If you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours". It is important to put it on the record that the Member is factually incorrect. If a former Member becomes a member of the independent panel, any decisions made by the panel will not influence that individual's pension. Mr Carroll's attempt to mislead Members, and members of the public, needs to be called out. He went on to say that the public will give their verdict on the types of MLAs whom they want. The people of Northern Ireland gave their verdict in 2022 on whom they wanted to represent them. There are 26 or 27 Members on these Benches. There is one Member on his Bench. I think that the people of Northern Ireland gave their verdict very clearly.

Interestingly, the Member for West Belfast often speaks about ensuring equality and equal rights for everyone, yet amendment No 8, which stands in his name, seeks to disbar former Members of this place from even having the ability to apply to be a member of the board. The Member is therefore so committed to equality that he wants to put discrimination into law. It is very important to make clear that, should a former Member apply, there is no guarantee that they will be appointed to the board or any more right to be. Rather, they will have equality of opportunity. I often hear lectures from Mr Carroll on that issue. It seems, however, that, once again, the Member does not practise what he preaches.

This has been a useful discussion and debate. I welcome Members' support for the amendments tabled in my name on behalf of the Committee.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Members, we are going to proceed to a series of votes, but I propose that we do that after Question Time.

I have two points of clarification to make about the tone of the debate: Cathy Mason is "the", not your, Deputy Chairperson of the Committee, and Gerry Carroll is a member of People Before Profit, not "person before profit".

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

You are more than welcome, but knock it on the head.

The Business Committee has agreed to meet at 1.00 pm today. I propose therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 12.52 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions — Economy

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

1. Mr Dunne asked the Minister for the Economy to outline her engagement with the Minister of Finance in relation to the findings of the sectoral study on the cost of doing business in Northern Ireland. (AQO 1974/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

In my previous role as Finance Minister, I commissioned the Ulster University Economic Policy Centre to examine the cost of doing business in the North. That research was published last week. It highlights the range of cost challenges that employers have faced in recent years, including those resulting from the COVID pandemic and the invasion of Ukraine. The challenges have been worsened by the British Government’s autumn statement, which increased employers' National Insurance contributions. The hospitality sector here, which is subject to a level of VAT that is higher than that in the South, has been particularly impacted on by the autumn statement. The research provides a firm evidence base that will be used to make the case to the Treasury to act. My colleague the Minister of Finance continues to urge the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to reduce the cost of doing business in the North. I will continue to support the Minister of Finance and advocate alongside him at every opportunity.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her answer. For months, the Minister and her colleague the Finance Minister have pointed to the need to have a research evidence base before addressing the concerns of businesses across our country. Now that the research is in place, what urgent actions will the Minister take to mitigate the dire consequences for local businesses? An example was highlighted at the Economy Committee last week by the Denroy Group, which had a bill of £800,000 for National Insurance and national living wage payments alone. That shows the scale of the challenge.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question and for highlighting that particular issue and the challenges facing businesses here. We all very much recognise those challenges. The Member will know — I have rehearsed this answer on a number of occasions — that the Executive do not have the financial capability to mitigate bad decisions that are taken at Westminster that have a direct detrimental impact on businesses and people here. Alongside our partner organisations, my Department provides a range of supports for businesses to help them become more competitive, through energy efficiency, innovation, skills and support for exploring new markets. All those things are important for improving competitiveness, but we will continue to make the case to the British Treasury to consider the decisions that it can make that directly impact on businesses here.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

The research highlights the differential hospitality VAT rates in the North and South. Would you support a reduction in the North's VAT rate on hospitality?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Yes. You are quite right that that is highlighted. I am sure that that issue has been reflected to many of us by businesses in our constituencies, particularly those in border areas that are competing directly with businesses in the South.

The Minister of Finance has asked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to consider what support or mitigations can be put in place for all impacted sectors, especially those here in the North, where, as the research shows, the impacts will be felt more significantly. The Minister also asked the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, given the disparity in VAT rates, North and South, to consider what steps the Westminster Government can take, or supports they can offer, using their powers over VAT, to help our hospitality businesses to operate on a level playing field with those in the South. I fully support the Minister of Finance in making that case and want to see a reduction in our VAT rate to support our hospitality sector so that it is able to compete in the all-island economy.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Has the Minister had any discussions with the Minister for Infrastructure on planning reform? The planning system is holding our businesses back, adding to the cost of doing business here and preventing the future development of those businesses and investment in Northern Ireland.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question, which is about something that is reflected to many of us in our conversations with businesses. I met the Infrastructure Minister last week to discuss that issue in particular. She highlighted a range of initiatives that her Department is taking to improve and speed up the planning process. We all recognise that there are resource challenges — what we can do with the Budget that we have — but steps can be taken, and she clearly reflected her commitment to do that.

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

Minister, you commissioned the study on the cost of doing business, but it appears that all that you will do with it is simply send it to the British Government and that the Executive will not do anything. When will you do something to help businesses here, given that 96% of respondents to Retail NI's survey said that this Executive were doing nothing for them?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I have made my position clear on the issue. The Executive do not have the financial capability to mitigate the decisions taken at Westminster that have a direct, detrimental impact not just on businesses but on people here. As I said, we already provide a range of supports to businesses, and we are looking at how those can be utilised to support businesses to grow, thrive and create jobs, but there is no escaping the reality that decisions taken by the British Government have a detrimental impact here and that the Executive are not in a position to fully mitigate all those decisions. That is just the reality.

I will continue to work hard with and on behalf of businesses in my representations to the Treasury. I will also work in partnership and collaboration with businesses to design supports and interventions that are under our control in order to support them to create jobs and a strong and thriving economy.

Diana Armstrong (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Minister, as has been mentioned, the study outlines a number of key impacts and challenges facing hospitality, such as the increase in employers' National Insurance contributions. It also points out that abolishing zero-hours contracts as part of the 'good jobs' employment rights Bill may be detrimental. Does the study give you a reason to revisit the 'good jobs' Bill?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

The research was conducted before the proposals for the 'good jobs' Bill were published. It is important to recognise that good jobs benefit everybody in our economy and that evidence clearly demonstrates that employers benefit from having a more productive and engaged workforce. There is a clear need to modernise our employment rights framework, and that is what we are doing. One reason for modernising is so that the good employers that we all know in our constituencies are not at a competitive disadvantage compared with those who do not treat their workers fairly.

On zero-hours contracts specifically, under the proposals that I have set out, we will ban exploitative zero-hours contracts so that, where a worker has regular hours on a regular basis, they will be entitled to a banded hours contract, but there will be exceptions for genuinely casual and seasonal work. Even in that instance, we are taking steps, for example, to ban the exclusivity clauses that can be in place here. We have tried to strike a balance between ensuring that workers' rights are protected and recognising the case that has been made to us that there are genuine circumstances in which such contracts can be useful to employers and workers.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

2. Mr Tennyson asked the Minister for the Economy for an update on the closure of the non-domestic renewable heat incentive (RHI) scheme. (AQO 1975/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

On 30 July, the then Economy Minister announced that the Executive had reaffirmed their commitment to close the non-domestic RHI scheme. That was consistent with the aim in 'New Decade, New Approach' in 2020:

"RHI will be closed down and replaced by a scheme that effectively cuts carbon emissions."

I am committed to a closure arrangement that will ensure fairness to people who entered and participated in the scheme in good faith and, at the same time, achieve fairness and value for money for the public purse. A business case for the closure of the scheme is with the Department of Finance. Subject to the approval of the Department of Finance, Treasury and the Executive, the Department intends to close the scheme through primary legislation, which will provide the powers for the Department to bring forward the closure regulations. Subordinate legislation — regulations — setting out the detail of the closure arrangements will then be subject to consultation. The Department continues to engage with key stakeholders on the design and details of the closure of the scheme, and a proposal will be brought to the Executive for agreement. A consultation will then be launched on the draft regulations that will give effect to the closure arrangements.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for that answer. Minister, will you give us a timeline for when we can expect to see that primary legislation? What assurances can you give that proposals for closure will command the confidence of the Assembly this time?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. I cannot give a precise time frame for approval of the business case. My Department is working at pace with the Department of Finance on progressing that. I am sure that the Member will agree that it is important that that is done appropriately. With the support of the Executive, it is my intention to introduce legislation before summer recess.

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Minister, the New Decade, New Approach agreement committed to replacing the RHI scheme with a scheme that more effectively cuts emissions. Is that also being progressed?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Yes. With respect to renewable heat in the domestic sector, the Department consulted recently on future support of low-carbon technology in residential properties. That consultation closed on 10 January. The views that were provided will support the Department in the development of policy to inform options regarding the design of and rules and guidance on future support for low-carbon heat, which will include energy-efficient technologies, such as heat pumps. In the non-domestic sector, the Department's focus is on closing the non-domestic RHI scheme in advance of Ofgem's departure.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

3. Mr Donnelly asked the Minister for the Economy for an update on the development of the North/South interconnector. (AQO 1976/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

The North/South interconnector project is essential in order to deliver an affordable and renewable energy system across the island. It is estimated that the cost to local electricity consumers due to the absence of the interconnector is £19 million per year. The interconnector will enable an additional 900 MW of clean electricity into the North’s transmission system and reduce levels of "dispatch down".

Reliance on a single North/South interconnector means that the North’s power system has a single point of failure. A second interconnector will strengthen security of supply. I have been consistent in my position that the North/South interconnector should be undergrounded. In the North, on 14 September 2020, the then Infrastructure Minister granted planning permission for the interconnector. The Northern section is expected to be delivered by 2028. The completion date for the Southern section has been revised from 2028 to 2031. EirGrid, the system operator in the South, has advised that that is due to delays in processing land access and actual construction time. Last week, I met Minister O’Brien, the Minister for Environment, Climate and Energy in the South, to discuss the issue. During that meeting, I set out my party’s position that the interconnector should be undergrounded.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for that answer. What is the Minister's assessment of the delay to the interconnector, with reference to planning objections from the Republic of Ireland?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

As I said in my initial answer, EirGrid has indicated that there are delays in processing land access and actual construction time. We have engaged with the Department in the South to understand what it is doing to try to reduce that extension, because there is a need to progress the North/South interconnector if we are to be able to meet our statutory obligations under the Climate Change Act 2022 and other targets. That Department has work to do to make that happen.

Áine Murphy (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Minister, how does your Department ensure adequate North/South cooperation on energy matters?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for her question. As I mentioned, I met my counterpart, Minister O'Brien, last week. He took up his post in January. I will continue to engage with him on energy issues.

My officials engage regularly on issues of cooperation between our energy supplies. Senior officials meet quarterly through a joint steering group to discuss oversight of the single electricity market (SEM) and areas that impact our respective energy strategies and climate change targets. The joint steering group is attended by senior officials from my Department, the Department of Energy and Climate Change (DECC), both regulators and representatives from the SEM committee.

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

Minister, I am really confused. You have said on multiple occasions from that lectern that you think that the North/South interconnector needs to be undergrounded. I am on the Department's website, which makes it clear that the planning permission that your Department sought is for an overground North/South interconnector. Are you saying one thing while your Department is delivering another? I strongly support the North/South interconnector, but a colleague of yours in the South, Mr Darren O'Rourke TD, appears to object to it. How can you be taken seriously as an Economy Minister who will deliver critical infrastructure when you say one thing and do another and contradict yourself in the Chamber?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I do not agree with the Member about my comments, because I have been consistent on my party's position and the party has been consistent in its position that it would help secure community buy-in. Planning permission was granted by a previous Infrastructure Minister who was your party colleague. As Ministers, we are obliged to fulfil the commitments in respect of that planning consent.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

Minister, are you confident that the necessary infrastructure will be in place to ensure delivery to the north-west and the north coast?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. As I said, I have engaged with my counterpart in the South to understand what the issues are in the delay that they made indications about. As I mentioned in my opening answer, the Northern section will be completed by 2028. There is an issue in respect of the investment in the grid, which NIE is progressing. It was granted a record investment of £2·2 billion under RP7, and it will work alongside the Department to ensure the roll-out of that project.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Earlier today, I dealt with a point of order raised by the Justice Minister on Members asking a Minister's opinion. Members do not generally have to ask a Minister's opinion, as we have just found out, because the Minister has just given an opinion that is contrary to the facts. I said today that this is about getting facts, and the fact is that the North/South interconnector has planning approval to go overground and that the electricity bodies that propose to develop it plan to go overground, as does the Minister's Department. We did not need the Minister's opinion; we just needed facts.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

4. Ms Sheerin asked the Minister for the Economy to outline the next steps in relation to the 'good jobs' employment rights Bill. (AQO 1977/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

My 'good jobs' employment rights Bill will deliver the biggest upgrade of our employment legislation since the Good Friday Agreement. It includes proposals to end exploitative zero-hours contracts; enhance protections for agency workers; end abuse of fire-and-rehire tactics; ensure that tips left to workers are passed on to them in full; modernise our trade union framework; make it easier to attain flexible working; and enhance rights to family-related leave, including the introduction of carer's leave, as well as neonatal leave and pay. I intend to deliver my proposals through primary and secondary legislation, statutory codes of practice and guidance.

The next step is for the Executive to agree the broad policy content of the Bill. Following Executive agreement, my Department will engage formally with the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) to draft the Bill. I intend to seek final Executive approval of the draft Bill towards the end of this year, with the hope of introducing it in the Assembly by January 2026. As the detail is refined, my Department will continue to engage with key stakeholders to ensure that the legislation operates effectively for workers and businesses.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a freagra.

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

Minister, will you outline the benefits of a social model underpinned by constructive relationships between employers and trade unions?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Effective social dialogue between Governments, employers and trade unions is essential for advancing social justice, fostering inclusive economic development, improving wages and working conditions and supporting sustainable enterprises. A cornerstone of good governance and social dialogue creates the conditions necessary to achieve decent work for all, while promoting social peace, stability and effective labour market governance. The tripartite model of social dialogue is promoted by the International Labour Organization and is widely adopted internationally.

Engaging in and embedding the tripartite model of social dialogue across our economy is a key principle of my 'good jobs' agenda. Meaningful discussion between my Department, employers and trade unions about the practical outworkings of the Bill is essential, if the planned changes are to have the desired positive effect. My officials have already reached out to key employer and trade union stakeholders following my announcement on 28 April, and I encourage them all to be as involved as possible in the next critical stage of the process.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Your small and micro business impact test (SAMBIT) for theme c of your proposals was belatedly published on Good Friday, when other people's attention was on the Easter period. The document references millions of pounds of costs to business as a result of your proposals. Earlier, you said that you did not have the ability to mitigate the decision by the UK Government to implement additional costs to business, so please outline to the House today what financial measures you are putting in place to support business as a result of your legislation.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. In recognition of the potential impact of the proposals, as he rightly pointed out, my Department carried out a series of impact assessments on the individual policies and the SAMBIT, which he mentioned. The assessments will continue to be reviewed as we develop our policies and legislation. As I have outlined on numerous occasions since we made the announcement about the proposals, it is my intention that we will phase the implementation of the proposals and work with businesses to support their implementation.

It is important to say that, while workers are generally entitled to the same framework of employment rights, regardless of employer size, there are some mitigations in respect of the proposals for smaller businesses in relation to what I have announced, for example, around the threshold for statutory trade union recognition. The reduction is from 21 employees to 10, which will exclude microbusinesses here. We will continue to work with businesses to support them in the implementation. Some of the feedback that we got during the consultation process related to ensuring that there is proper guidance and training in place to support businesses. We will work closely with the Labour Relations Agency to progress that as the Bill goes through the next stages of its process.

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

Given our tight financial situation and the fact that the British Government's Employment Rights Bill includes no proposals on paid carer's leave, how do you plan to ensure that funding is available to fulfil your promise to make paid carer's leave a reality?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. We all recognise the importance of carers and the key role that they play in our society and in our economy. That is why we have stated that, in the first instance, we will introduce an unpaid entitlement of up to five days in a rolling 12-month period for those who have a caring responsibility for a relative or dependant. I have been clear that my desire is for that to be a paid entitlement, and my Department will take the legal powers to introduce a paid carer's leave entitlement. I have also been honest about the fact that we have challenging financial circumstances that everybody will be well rehearsed in, and it will be for the Executive to discuss whether that can be funded from our own resources. I understand that a review of carer's leave is being undertaken in England as well, so, if it is introduced at a future point by the British Government, we will be able to follow suit here immediately.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

5. Mr McGuigan asked the Minister for the Economy to provide an update on the pay award for further education lecturers. (AQO 1978/22-27)

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

10. Mr Bradley asked the Minister for the Economy for an update on discussions to secure a pay settlement for further education lecturers. (AQO 1983/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Further education is a critical part of our economic infrastructure, supporting people to achieve their potential and providing the skills needed for our businesses to grow. It is therefore important that further education lecturers are paid appropriately. The consolidated pay increases for lecturers were just 1% in both 2021-22 and 2022-23. When my predecessor came into post, he committed to work towards parity with teachers. On that basis, he facilitated an 11·2% pay agreement for further education lecturers in 2023-24.

I am also committed to working towards pay parity. I have therefore facilitated an offer of a 5·5% pay increase for further education lecturers for 2024-25, which aligns to the offer accepted by teachers. In addition, a 3% pay increase has been proposed for 2025-26, providing much-needed stability for lecturers and students alike.

The further education colleges, as employers, are also progressing a range of agreed work streams, including workload, in conjunction with trade unions in the 2025-26 academic year. As in all Departments, my budget is under severe pressure; however, by working collaboratively with colleges and trade unions, we have been able to facilitate that pay offer for further education lecturers.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for providing a useful update on lecturers' pay. Further to that, what is the position with regard to a pay offer for non-teaching staff in colleges?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Non-teaching staff have already been given a pay award for 2024-25 that was approved in December 2024. I am aware that the National Joint Council (NJC) has made a full and final pay offer for 2025-26 that, if agreed, will apply to non-teaching staff in our further education colleges.

Mr Speaker, it was remiss of me not to have said at the start of my answer that I wished to group questions 5 and 10.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

No problem. I call Maurice Bradley.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The Minister has answered my question, so well done.

[Laughter.]

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Minister, do you agree that the current pay offer, while matching the schoolteachers' percentage increase, does not advance pay parity? The unions therefore regard it as a standstill.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for her question. I understand that, alongside the pay offer that has been made, work is necessary to address parity issues that remain between teachers and further education lecturers. That is an essential condition of the pay offer that is currently available. I have made it clear that I want to see progress at pace on those issues. I remain fully supportive of equitable remuneration for further education lecturers.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

6. Mrs Dodds asked the Minister for the Economy to outline any support that she will make available to businesses in relation to changes and advancement of artificial intelligence technology. (AQO 1979/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

My Department and Invest NI are committed to helping businesses harness artificial intelligence (AI) as a key enabler of economic development. Invest NI provides funding for AI-related research and development projects and essential skills development programmes to equip the workforce for AI adoption.

The Artificial Intelligence Collaboration Centre funded by DFE and Invest NI offers direct access to expertise and supports practical AI implementation and AI skills. Furthermore, city deal innovation centres under the Belfast region city deal and the Derry City and Strabane region city deal provide regional investment in innovation infrastructure. Those centres will foster AI applications in critical sectors such as ICT, advanced manufacturing and life sciences.

Further support mechanisms include initiatives such as the digital transformation flexible fund, which assists SMEs with the adoption costs of AI and other digital infrastructure; Digital Catapult NI, which connects firms with AI expertise and accelerates advanced technology uptake; and Go Succeed NI, which runs regular events to help businesses to navigate digital transformation, including AI adoption. Together, those measures provide businesses across the North with access to funding, skills, expert guidance and collaborative opportunities to successfully integrate and benefit from AI advancements, boosting productivity and global competitiveness.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

That is a significant list. What assessment has the Department made of the impact of AI on the workforce in Northern Ireland, since it is fundamentally changing the way in which we do business and the way we work?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Briefly, please, Minister.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for her question. The issue is raised at almost every meeting that I have with businesses. The overall impact of AI on the labour market will depend on a range of factors, including the speed of AI adoption, the extent of productivity benefits, whether businesses reduce headcount or redeploy their workforce, and by how much and how quickly AI increases demand for labour. As I said in my original answer, the Artificial Intelligence Collaboration Centre is supporting the Department and businesses to understand AI and providing practical support on its adoption.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We now move on to topical questions.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

T1. Ms McLaughlin asked the Minister for the Economy, given that, last week, she refused to rule out an increase in tuition fees, and given that students are already at breaking point, with some working over 20 hours a week on top of their studies just to get by, whether she will now commit to not raising fees in any circumstances. (AQT 1301/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for her question. First, let me say that my perspective is that student fees would ideally be zero, but we have to work within the financial reality and under the system that we have, which is imposed on us by the British Government, and follow that Government's policy on fees. Years of austerity have had an impact on all our public services, including our universities, which are a key economic driver, so we need to ensure that fees are set at a level that is affordable for students and that maintains universities' financial viability. It is also important to look at the maintenance support that is in place for students. It has not been uplifted for many years. Unfortunately, as I outlined in previous answers, the Executive are in a position in which, for the past number of years, they have been mitigating the effects of decisions and bad policies from Westminster. It is the same when it comes to student fees.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Minister, with the greatest respect, that is neither a yes nor a no. As an all-island party, Sinn Féin's position on student fees should be consistent. In the South, your party wants to reduce and abolish tuition fees, yet, in the North, you are not ruling out raising them. That is totally inconsistent, and, for an all-island party, Sinn Féin is acting in a very partitionist manner. Are you really telling the House that Sinn Féin is happy with two different policy positions, North and South, on tuition fees —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Minister.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

— and that the value of a student in the South is greater than that of one in the North?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

The Member has articulated the challenge that we face with partition, which is damaging for everybody across this island. The reality is that I take the exact same position as my colleagues in the South, and I articulated at the beginning of my answer that, from my perspective, I would like to see no student fees. We are, however, in a reality in which we do not have the financial capability or the fiscal powers that the Government in the South have. We have costed proposals to reduce and remove student fees. As I said, in the North, we are in a position in which we have a system of fees imposed on us that the Tory Government put in place and that the Labour Government are maintaining. The Executive are trying to ensure that we have a viable economy and a skills pipeline, but, from my perspective, we need to see proper support for students.