Northern Ireland Assembly, 1 July 2025

356 contributions from 59 members. The official report.

Members' Statements

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I rise to raise the issue of postal delays in Derry. On a recent visit to a Royal Mail sorting office in Derry, I was informed by staff that letters can sometimes wait for nine or 10 days before they are delivered.

[Interruption.]

Sorry?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Continue.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

OK. Staff noted that they have been told to prioritise parcels, overtime has been curtailed and holiday periods are often left uncovered. That creates an untouched backlog of mail for staff to deal with when they return from leave. As a result of parcels being prioritised, constituents are missing letters that contain details about vital hospital appointments, financial information and other time-bound and sensitive information.

I therefore recently wrote to the Consumer Council and Ofcom, requesting that they look into the following six critical issues that are impacting on people in Derry: the extent to which Royal Mail is meeting its public service obligations to its customers; the potential health impact of missing vital hospital appointment letters, particularly those related to cancer, and the resultant delay in diagnosis and treatment; the potential financial impacts, including loss of earnings, of receiving letters on financial and insurance matters significantly later than expected; the potential judicial impact of missing jury service and pressing legal letters; the potential financial impact of late bill or fine payments as a result of not receiving letters in a timely and efficient manner; and the impact on small businesses of not being able to effectively and efficiently send or receive letters in a timely manner.

There are countless other issues that we can rehearse, but this is about changing the system. It is about Royal Mail recognising the problem and putting in place strategic and robust measures to change. People in Derry will not accept a second-class system from Royal Mail. People are often left waiting on vital healthcare letters, in some cases missing appointments because they have received the appointment letter days after the appointment was due to take place. Our office has been contacted by people who are waiting on a cancer diagnosis and are, obviously and naturally, worried about the impact that the postal delays will have on their treatment options.

It is also deeply unfair that our postal staff, who work tirelessly in all conditions all year round, are bearing the brunt of decisions taken by Royal Mail management. Royal Mail needs to meet its public service obligations. It needs to get mail out to people in Derry in a timely manner, and it needs to take responsibility at management level to make that happen.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

On this 1 July morning, I rise to commemorate the 109th anniversary of the first day of the Battle of the Somme. The battle resonates throughout history for us due to the sheer scale of casualties among Ulstermen on the first day of what became one of the bloodiest battles in human history.

The battle was intended to be a decisive blow against the German forces. In preparation, the British artillery fired constantly for six days to destroy the German front-line trenches, with over 1·5 million shells fired. However, that bombardment did not have the desired effect. At 0730 hours on 1 July, whistles blew, and thousands climbed bravely out of the trenches to cross no man's land under enemy fire. By the end of that first day, the British forces had 57,470 casualties, with 19,240 dead. The Germans suffered 10,000 to 12,000 casualties, equating to roughly 5:1 losses for the attacking forces.

The 36th (Ulster) Division was the only division of X Corps to achieve its objectives on the opening day of the battle. That came at a heavy price, with the division suffering over 5,000 officers and men killed, wounded or missing. When news of those losses reached home, the Lord Mayor of Belfast, Sir Crawford McCullagh, requested that all business be suspended for a civic act of remembrance lasting five minutes. He was the first person to be recorded as publicly calling for a period of silence for the remembrance of fallen soldiers. That event is portrayed in the stained glass window in Belfast City Hall that honours his many years as lord mayor.

Of nine Victoria Crosses (VCs) awarded for action on the first day of the Battle of the Somme, four were awarded to 36th Division soldiers. One VC was subsequently awarded to a soldier in the 16th (Irish) Division, which served nobly later in the battle alongside the 36th (Ulster) Division. The battle ended on 18 November 1916. By then, there were over one million casualties: 420,000 British and over 500,000 German. By the end of the battle, the British had advanced 7 miles.

As we remember those who gave so much in that battle, let us remember all those who have given so much in all conflicts for the freedoms that we and others enjoy today.

"At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them."

Some Members

We will remember them.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

The shortest speaking slot that we are generally allocated in the Chamber is three minutes. That is how long the Minister of Education gave to address special educational needs (SEN) placements in the Chamber yesterday. Last week, we all wondered where the Minister was on the issue: it turns out that he was in Florida. What message does that send to the children and families who face an uncertain summer waiting for a school place?

The Minister and the Education Authority (EA) have done all that they can to frame the issue as the fault of schools, but the responsibility for planning and allocation of resources lies absolutely with the Minister, his Department and the EA. The fact that we still have over 100 children without an allocated place on 1 July is a crisis. It is a disgrace, and it has been allowed to happen not because schools have not stepped up but because the education leadership has prioritised other things. We are now watching a last-minute scramble to get a handle on the issue, with suggestions being made that the Minister will force schools to comply. Imagine being the child who is told that they have a place in a school that does not want them.

The Education Minister is not shy about coming to the Chamber to trumpet and announce the things for which he wants applause. Real leaders, however, step up and take responsibility when there is a crisis. They do not simply look for someone else to blame. Tacking on a statement to the end of another SEN-related debate on restrictive practices — another issue that the Minister has not delivered on — is contemptible. It undermined the important issue that we were there to debate and sent a message to the children without a place that they are not worth his time.

The number of children not allocated a place is only one part of the scandal.

Arguably, the bigger failure becomes more obvious when you try to probe how many of those children with an allocated place will have a physical classroom to attend in September. We know that, in October 2024, 139 children were still waiting to access their allocated place due to building works. Then we get into the issue of the appropriateness of the places that are allocated. At the Education Committee, we have heard evidence from school leaders who have stepped up to take on specialist provision but have not been supported adequately to give those children an equitable education experience relative to their peers. In some instances, they have told us that the best that they can do is to keep them safe in school. No wonder schools are reluctant to step forward in that context. We will continue to ask questions and do what we can to support our SEN families, but they are failed, too often, and it cannot go on.

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I rise with a heavy heart not only as a public representative but as a woman, a mother and a witness to the deep and lasting scars that coercive control inflicts on women and children. Since 2020, 27 women have been killed due to domestic abuse, with Sarah Montgomery — a pregnant mother of two — the latest to be lost to that type of violence. We often speak in the Chamber about protecting women and children, but the truth is that protection cannot exist only in words or the safety of a well-written policy: it must exist in reality, and that reality is often brutal, complicated and hidden behind closed doors.

Coercive control is a form of abuse that strips a woman of her autonomy, her voice and, often, her children: the psychological violence is quiet but lethal. It is the manipulation of the systems to isolate a mother, erase her from her child's life and paint her as unstable or unworthy, all while appearing respectable to the outside world. We do not speak enough about the impact that that has on children: children who are used in battles that they never chose; children who are shaped by control, fear and silence; children who learn to second-guess love; and children who carry confusion, guilt or false loyalties into adulthood. Those children grow up believing that love is conditional, that safety is unpredictable and that truth depends on who has the power to tell it. Protecting women and children means more than responding to physical violence. It means recognising when a mother is being erased from her child's life through manipulation, gaslighting and legal intimidation. It means having the courage to believe her, even when her story makes us uncomfortable. It means looking deeper, because coercive control does not always leave bruises.

If we are serious about protection, we need to stand with those women before they are broken. We need systems that understand coercion, protect maternal bonds and treat emotional abuse with the same urgency as physical abuse. There needs to be a cultural and systemic change through each of our Departments and society. I say this today not just to raise awareness but to call for action, because there are women and children who need more than sympathy. They need justice; they need truth; and they need to know that someone is willing to say, "That is not love. It is control, and we will not let it win".

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

During yesterday's Members' statements, I listened to the Member opposite from South Down talk about Warrenpoint; indeed, one of my colleagues has talked about Warrenpoint and the waste that is rotting on the quay. Many trucks arrive daily from across the Province to dump waste in Warrenpoint.

That brings me back to last week's judgement on the A5, when climate targets were key. The best way to describe those who supported those targets is "environmentally illiterate", because there were options, but they decided to support targets that have made things much more difficult in Northern Ireland. On the one hand, they are climate fanatics, and on the other hand, they are climatically irresponsible.

The SDLP had an opportunity to deal with waste in Northern Ireland, but, on two occasions, it interfered in a planning process that would have allowed a site to be built on this island to deal with waste. That energy-from-waste plant would have dealt with all the waste and would have meant that people from Warrenpoint, Cottonmount and your constituency, Mr Speaker, did not have to suffer the stench from landfill sites, but, no, those representatives chose populism. They chose to take the waste to Warrenpoint and ship it from Northern Irish shores to other parts of the world. They chose to put the waste in a boat, which is environmentally irresponsible given the amount of fuel that is needed to transport it for miles, and dump it at sea, as evidenced by a documentary some months ago. It a case of out of sight, out of mind. They interfered in the planning system because of Nimbyism: not in my back yard. There was a perfectly good solution in Northern Ireland that would have served us all and got the best value out of waste — people would have benefited from the energy from waste — but, no, they chose another option.

I say this to people in Warrenpoint, Mullaghglass and Cottonmount: go and rap on the doors of your representatives who, on the one hand, say that they support the climate, but on the other hand, are climate deniers, because they would rather that that waste rot and cause a stench in our areas than deal with it properly.

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

Today is the last day that we will sit in a plenary meeting before the summer break. In the past couple of weeks, families will have been looking at their children's report cards; they will have been looking at how their kids have been doing in school and college and thinking about how best to support them in the next stage of their education. Therefore, it is the right time to look at how the Executive have done.

We are now more than 500 days in to the new Executive, who were formed in February 2024 after a two-year delay. When the Executive were formed, they promised the people of Northern Ireland that they would take action on health waiting lists, social housing and the disgraceful ecological catastrophe in our biggest natural resource: Lough Neagh. Critically, they promised that the life-saving A5 infrastructure project would be delivered. Gaels and people who want to see the development of west Belfast were promised that Casement Park would be delivered. Parents who are struggling with the cost of childcare were promised not just some support but a comprehensive childcare strategy. I am afraid that I, as leader of the Opposition, have to report today that none of those things has been delivered by the Executive. In fact, they are nowhere near to being delivered. The public deserve so much better than what they have received from the Executive.

In the spirit of being detailed, I will go through where we are with some of those things. The Programme for Government promised 6,000 social homes by the end of the mandate. This year, if we are lucky, barely 1,000 will be built, so that target can be written off. On the A5, the then Infrastructure Minister — the now Finance Minister — failed to get the paperwork done. That project has been thrown into severe jeopardy. Who knows whether it will ever be built? It certainly will not be built in this mandate. On Lough Neagh — our biggest natural resource is an open-air cesspool — Sinn Féin joined the DUP in voting against the critical, fundamental action proposed in the Lough Neagh action plan. We heard a couple of weeks ago about an additional allocation from the UK Government for Casement Park, but, as yet, there is no plan. There is no sense of where the rest of the money is going to be found or of when the project is going to be delivered. There has been some funding for the childcare strategy, but that has been wiped out by the additional rises that families have faced. There is no comprehensive childcare strategy as yet.

My SDLP colleagues and I promised to be a constructive Opposition, and we have been. Being a constructive Opposition means standing up for the people of Northern Ireland, who deserve so much better than the sound bites, photo ops and nonsense that they have received from the Executive. The First Minister claimed yesterday that she would not deliver the A5 by sound bites. In that case, I do not know how she is going to deliver it, because all that she has at the minute is sound bites.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

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

I worry that our public are going to become totally disillusioned. We deserve so much better than what we are getting from the Executive.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The Assembly is supposedly built on the principle of accountability. Ministers are meant to answer to the House, not ignore it, but we are witnessing a calculated culture of obstruction, silence and secrecy from the Executive Office. We now know that the First Minister and deputy First Minister blocked the release of information about their £54,000 trip to Washington in 2024 for over a year. The flights, hotels and taxis were all racked up from the public purse but were hidden from the public record. Civil servants prepared answers to questions for written answer that were ready to go, yet they sat on the desks because Michelle O'Neill and Emma Little-Pengelly refused to sign them off. It is deliberate, it is political, and it is a disgrace.

Let me remind the House of Standing Order 20C, which states:

"The Minister ... to whom a question is addressed shall answer it – (a) by the end of ten working days after it is published".

Not 280 days, not a year — 10 working days. That is not a suggestion, it is a Standing Order of the Assembly that is routinely being ignored.

The answers to hundreds of questions for written answer on spending, foreign engagement, equality and civic engagements have been buried. Assembly Members from every party have to chase replies for months. Often, when an answer finally appears, it is just a sentence or two with the same excuse: there is no joint agreement. It is time for some joint accountability.

When Ministers dodge questions, they are not just being evasive; they are breaking the rules of the House. The Speaker has rightly said that not answering a question for written answer for a year is clearly not acceptable. Ministers are not above the Assembly. They do not get to choose which questions they answer or when. It is not a private office; it is a public Government. If the Executive Office will not respect the Assembly's procedures, then we turn to you, Mr Speaker, to assess it. Scrutiny is not optional. Transparency is not up for negotiation. The public, who foot the bill, have the right to know how their money is being spent.

Órlaithí Flynn (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Members, today at 12.30 in the Great Hall, I will stand alongside Sinéad Boyle. Sinéad is a mother whose son Seán tragically died by suicide in June 2020. Sinéad is calling for urgent action to see crisis intervention services made available to all who need them, regardless of where they live. She has contacted all Members and all Ministers to ask them to support her calls for the regional mental health crisis service to be implemented. As you will know, that plan was first published in 2021, but we are still waiting on the funding to fully deliver the plan, and that is an urgent need.

Sinéad's son Seán was just 24 when, sadly, he lost his young life to suicide. He always struggled with his mental health, and he also, sadly, struggled with substance use. Seán wanted to live, and he asked for help. We have heard that about a lot of cases that have been mentioned in the Chamber, but he had asked for help multiple times. Unfortunately, the help that he required was not there when he needed it most. Sinéad told us that Seán often said:

"No one is listening to me, Mummy".

Those words will stick with her for the rest of her life because he is now, sadly, gone.

Today, I encourage all Members of the Assembly to listen to Sinéad's specific call for each and every one of us to listen to her request to get the regional mental health crisis service over the line and fully implemented. Sinéad Boyle and her family firmly believe that Seán's death could have been prevented if he had been given the immediate and appropriate crisis intervention services. If those services had been available to him, he might still be alive. The need for the service is urgent. The solutions are well known, but the human cost of inaction is far too great. Today, in Seán's name, and the names of all those whom we have lost too soon, we ask you to support the regional mental health crisis service plan and to support Seán's law.

Above all, support those who are still fighting to this day: those who are still alive and in crisis, silently fighting for their lives.

I urge all Members, if they have the time, please to come to the Great Hall any time from 12.30 pm to show their solidarity and to sign the pledge. Sinéad would greatly appreciate your attendance and appreciate having a wee chat with individual Members so that she can speak a bit more about Seán.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Today, I launch the public consultation on my private Member's Bill, which will seek to tackle a long-standing and deeply frustrating problem for many homeowners and communities across Northern Ireland: unadopted developments. I urge the industry and homeowners to get involved by giving their views. The Bill is not about restricting housebuilding or the housing market but about fairness for people who bought their home in good faith, believing that the appropriate infrastructure would be available outside their front door.

The Bill is the product of my listening to constituents, residents' groups, colleagues, developers and even officials from the Department for Infrastructure. The common message is that the current system is broken. Too many homeowners find themselves trapped in housing developments that they had been promised would be fully completed and adopted, with the associated roads, footpaths, street lighting and green spaces, yet, years after moving in, they are left with unfinished infrastructure, uncertainty as to where the responsibility lies and very few answers. Mr Speaker, I declare an interest as someone who lives in an unadopted development.

It is unacceptable that families who pay their rates and mortgage — who do everything right — are left to live in a development with street lights that do not work, with roads that are not resurfaced and with basic public services being withheld, because, for a variety of reasons, the development was never adopted by the relevant authority. In many cases, residents feel abandoned. They are caught between developers, the Department for Infrastructure and Northern Ireland Water (NIW). All the while, their quality of life suffers, and the value of their home may also be affected.

My Bill is not about punishing developers or shifting the burden on to local authorities. Rather, it is about creating a fair, transparent and enforceable system that ensures that developments are completed to an adoptable standard before the keys are handed over. Crucially, it is about restoring residents' trust in the Government and the private sector. We need to send a clear message that developments must not be left in limbo and that homeowners should not be left to foot the bill for unfinished work. I thank residents from across Northern Ireland who have contributed to the process so far, particularly those from Fermanagh and South Tyrone, by sharing their first-hand experiences.

The issue cuts across urban and rural areas. It affects people from all backgrounds and has persisted for far too long. Today, we take the first step towards ending the inertia. Hopefully, by getting the public's views, we can start to build a system that is fair and enforceable and, above all, that puts residents first.

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

Last week saw the launch in Parliament Buildings of a report from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH). The report is an absolute wake-up call to us all. The facts are stark. Between September 2020 and September 2023, the number of children who were waiting for community paediatric services in Northern Ireland soared by 86%, rising from just over 5,300 children to over 10,000 children. The number of children who were waiting more than two years tripled, reaching 2,223. Behind those numbers are children who are waiting too long for help, parents who are struggling to get answers and families whose children are losing critical development time.

Delays to accessing support for autism, ADHD, developmental disorders and mental health concerns do not just affect the here and now but shape educational outcomes, life chances and future economic contribution. If we miss the intervention window, we will not only fail children but add more cost and pressure to the adult system down the line. Moreover, there is a postcode lottery for services across trusts. That is unacceptable. The RCPCH's report shows that there are huge inconsistencies in provision, pathways and waiting times.

The Belfast Trust alone had 600 children waiting more than two years for community paediatric care at the end of 2024.

We also have to remember the workforce. Of the paediatricians surveyed, 88% said that demand outstrips capacity. Many described persistent shortages that predate COVID. Recruitment struggles, underinvestment and burnout are the hallmarks of a system that feels that it is being left behind. The royal college calls for a regional action plan, sustainable investment, real data, better coordination and integrated neurodevelopmental services. Those are not new ideas, however: they are common-sense, long overdue and utterly essential.

I say this clearly to the Health Minister and the Executive: why are our children waiting for over two years for basic care? Why is there no regional strategy for community paediatrics despite repeated warnings? How many more reports, reviews and statistics do we need before we see some action? Our children deserve better. The report shows what must be done, and we now need to see the political will to do it.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I call Peter Martin. Please confine your remarks to a couple of minutes, Mr Martin.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I will do my best.

I am delighted to congratulate St Columbanus' College on being named as one of the seven finalists in the secondary school of the year category in the 'Times Educational Supplement' (TES) Schools Awards. That outstanding achievement reflects the dedication, innovation and inclusive spirit at the heart of that exceptional school. Whilst ultimate glory eluded it, simply getting to be one of the final seven schools was a remarkable achievement.

I extend my congratulations to principal Maria Flynn, whose leadership steered the school to that remarkable national recognition, and I had better mention Liam Perry, the previous principal, or he will never speak to me again. I congratulate the teaching staff on their commitment to the school, I congratulate the support staff — the school has a pastoral ethos — and, to the pupils, I offer massive congratulations: you deserve that recognition for your dedication, resilience and enthusiasm. The recognition in the TES awards is testament to their passion and teamwork and to the hard-working values that define the school's Christian ethos.

I wish final congratulations to the principal, Maria Flynn, and all teachers, staff and pupils on reaching that incredible milestone: I wish you every success in the years ahead, and I hope that you build on that fantastic achievement, but, Mr Speaker, school's out for summer.

Assembly Business

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Under Standing Order 20C, questions for written answer should be answered within 10 working days. Through a freedom of information (FOI) request, I have established that there are multiple examples of draft replies being prepared by officials for the First Minister and deputy First Minister and then sitting on their desks, awaiting political sign-off, for 50, 100 and even 270 days. That is not the fault of civil servants. The problem in that office sits at the top. Transparency is being evaded. What action will you take to compel Ministers to fulfil their obligations to the House, and will your office undertake to study the FOI material that highlights the problem?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Thank you for raising that, Mr Gaston. We will look at that over the summer and see what more we can do to address the issue. As a Minister, I was constantly aware of trying to answer questions on time. I am also aware, having done the Health job at one stage, of how many questions you have to answer and the pressure that you are under. That does not mean that you cannot do it: you can do it.

The Executive Office is different, because you have to have the agreement of the two Ministers before something can be moved off. One might give them a bit of latitude; nonetheless, up to 283 days is a tad extreme. We will look at that and see how we can address it in the next session.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to correct the record. During yesterday's Second Stage debate on the Adult Protection Bill, I said:

"the Committee has proposed to extend the reporting deadline to March 2026." — [Official Report (Hansard), 30 June 2025, p69, col 1].

I was getting ahead of myself; I should have said that the Committee had agreed to request an extension to March 2026. I hope that that corrects the record.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Thank you for that, Mr Donnelly.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to add to Mr Gaston's point of order. I know the points that have been made on the matter, but could an assessment be carried out? Agreement should not be required on a simple and factual piece of information. The cost of a hotel is the cost of a hotel; it is not up for debate or discussion. The First Minister and deputy First Minister's disagreement is over the release of the information — they do not want to release it — not the piece of information itself. Mr Speaker, you made a valid point about the Department of Health, where it can take a long time to gather swathes of information. Reading a number from a bill does not take long. It would be appreciated if you would consider that as part of your deliberations.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

OK. The Member has made his point about that, as has Mr Gaston. Anybody else? No. Good.

Ministerial Statement

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, in compliance with section 52 of the NI Act 1998, I will make a statement on the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) inland waterways meeting, which was held at the North/South Ministerial Council joint secretariat headquarters in Armagh on 12 May 2025. The Executive were represented by me, as Minister for Infrastructure, and junior Minister Pam Cameron from the Executive Office. The Irish Government were represented by James Browne, Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage. The statement has been agreed with junior Minister Cameron, and I am making it on behalf of both of us. Minister Browne chaired the meeting, and the following is a note of what was discussed.

We welcomed the achievements of Waterways Ireland since the previous meeting and the valuable contribution that it continues to make through its various activities, including the developments that it has made in four strategic projects — the Ulster canal, Carnroe weir, the Tullamore centre of excellence master plan and the Dublin port master plan — and in its major projects, such as Camden lough, Barrow navigation and Connaght harbour. We welcomed the significant developments on the Royal canal greenway and the Grand canal greenway; the completion of an initial public consultation on route options for the Limerick to Scarriff greenway; the roll-out across the organisation of an emergency response service; and the achievement of accreditation to the International Organization for Standardization (ISO) health and safety standard by Waterways Ireland. We also recognised the achievements of Waterways Ireland, which included finishing as a finalist in the category of green public-sector organisation of the year at the Green Awards 2025; being shortlisted at the Public Sector Digital Transformation Awards; winning the large website and overall website categories at the National Digital Awards; and being selected as a United Nations sustainable development goals champion for 2024-25.

We welcomed Waterways Ireland's response to climate change, biodiversity and sustainability issues and noted the themes in its 'Heritage and Biodiversity Plan 2030'. We also noted the update from Waterways Ireland on embedding sustainability in the organisation. We approved Waterways Ireland's business plan, recommended budgets and grants for 2025. We noted that the Waterways Ireland's annual reports and accounts for 2023 have been laid before the Northern Ireland Assembly and both Houses of the Oireachtas and that the annual report and accounts for 2024 have been submitted to the Comptrollers and Auditors General in both jurisdictions.

We consented to a number of property disposals. We welcomed a presentation from Waterways Ireland that outlined the current position with the Ulster canal restoration project; the completion of the repairs to Carnroe weir; its plans for its current premises in Tullamore; the planned relocation to a purpose-built depot; and its plans for the Grand canal dock and the canals and docklands area of Dublin. We also approved the reappointment of Mr John McDonagh as CEO of Waterways Ireland. Officials from Louth County Council presented to us on the progress that has been achieved on the construction of the Narrow Water bridge, which is located between Cornamucklagh, County Louth, and Warrenpoint, County Down.

The Council agreed to hold its next inland waterways meeting in late 2025.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a ráitis.

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

I also thank her for the update on her meeting with Minister James Browne, the hardest working man in politics. Will the Minister give us an update on the Ulster canal restoration project? I am particularly interested in the phase of work that will be carried out in the North. Can we have an update on that, please?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Ulster canal project is being progressed in three phases, as the Member may be aware. Phase 1, which is the channel from Lough Erne to Castle Saunderson, and phase 2, which goes from Clones to Clonfad, are both now complete and open for navigation. Work on the third and final phase of the Castle Saunderson to Clonfad connection is in progress. Feasibility and pre-construction work, including vesting of lands and renewing planning permission, is under way. Phase 3 is subdivided into four sub-phases, and the current estimated completion date for all sub-phases is 2028-29. I am fully committed to supporting the completion of that very ambitious project, which is transformational to communities and businesses in the region. All funding for the project to date has been provided by the Irish Government, including through the Shared Island Fund, with further commitments in place.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for her statement. Like the previous Member to ask a question, I will focus on the Ulster canal, particularly as it relates to Fermanagh. It is good to see development. Obviously, the Ulster canal touches on a number of counties. It is important for tourism in the area as well. How much is the Minister thinking about taking a joined-up approach to an integral transport system for the area, making sure that people are able to access the Ulster canal with public transport networks whenever they use it? That will also help to boost tourism. What work is she doing with the Economy Minister on that?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

That was not discussed at the meeting per se. We recently launched a transport strategy, and that feeds into that broader piece on what we are looking at with our transport right across the North. It also looks at how we are linked to the rest of the island. That is an important point, and we can look at it in greater detail as we are going through that work. I encourage the Member to feed into the consultation, and that is something that we could point to in the feedback from that.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for her statement. In recent weeks, the AERA Committee met in County Fermanagh, where we met Waterways Ireland and heard about its many plans and the great work that it has been doing. The Minister mentioned the Ulster canal. Has Waterways Ireland delivered any other projects in the North?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Quite a significant amount of work has been done with Waterways Ireland. We can talk about the different phases of the plan for the Ulster canal. We have also looked at Waterways Ireland's responsibilities and at what else it does to see whether there is anything that it can do around Lough Neagh. Unfortunately, it does not have responsibility for that at present. We are keen to see what else it can do and what we can keep within its remit, and that is what some of the discussions that we have been having with officials are about. The main focus in the North is on the Ulster canal restoration.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

Thank you, Minister. Minister, you mentioned the roll-out across the organisation of an emergency response service. I am curious to know what that service would entail and what functions it would be likely to perform.

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

An emergency response concerns the assets that are within the remit of Waterways Ireland and how we can address those as issues arise. We can probably provide more detailed information on that. It was alluded to in the meeting, but I can come back to the Member with more specifics about it, because I think that what it will look like in reality probably is quite technical. I recognise the Member's interest in that service, particularly for our waterways and what it means right across the North.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Minister, thank you for your statement. You mentioned that you received an update on the progress of the construction of the Narrow Water bridge. As you know, that is a key economic and tourism project for the wider south Down and County Louth area. Minister, what work is your Department doing with Louth County Council and, of course, the Irish Government on the delivery of the Narrow Water bridge?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Again, as it is closely linked to my constituency, I know how important that scheme is. As the Member will know, the Irish Government approved Shared Island funding for the total cost of the project, based on the successful tender, which is €102 million plus VAT. It is being led by the Irish Government and managed by Louth County Council with support from my Department for the connection to the parts of the North that it is relevant to. We had a very comprehensive and detailed presentation from officials from Louth County Council to show the progress to date and where they have got to with it.

The bridge is a major investment in landmark cross-border infrastructure and will provide for car, cycling and pedestrian traffic that connects the north and south of the island. Construction started in May 2024, and the planned completion date is October 2027. It is a 195-metre long cable-stayed structure that will link Omeath on the southern side with Warrenpoint on the northern side. It will help not just economically but from a tourism perspective. The bridge will be maintained by Louth County Council, which will be responsible for the maintenance and operation of the lifting aspect of it. Officials continue to be engaged with the Irish Government and Louth County Council during the construction phase and are also involved in the project oversight group to assist in the successful delivery of the project in connection with the roads network in the North.

It is an exciting scheme, and, for those who live close to the area, as the Member will know, it is fantastic to see the construction progressing at such great pace. The bridge presents a real opportunity for us all.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Minister, when it comes to North/South bodies, there seems to be a struggle within the organisation to account for its spend of public money. As your statement outlines, it has only now submitted annual accounts to this House for 2023. We are two financial years past that deadline. If that had been Northern Ireland Water, you may have called in forensic accountants once again. Will the Minister explain why public money is not being accounted for properly by those bodies?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Just to outline the arrangements for the governance of the body, Waterways Ireland is accountable to my Department as well as to the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage and the North/South Ministerial Council. Ministers discharge their oversight responsibilities for Waterways Ireland through their respective Departments and the NSMC, and that includes consideration of and agreement on its budget and corporate and business plans in progress to its agreed targets and project milestones. Quarterly monitoring meetings are held, chaired by senior officials from the relevant Departments. The chief executive and appropriate directors from Waterways Ireland attend to account for business performance and corporate governance. It has an independent chair and two external members on its audit committee to ensure that it is also properly audited.

On its current accounting position, Waterways Ireland has submitted its annual accounts for 2024 to the Comptroller and Auditor General in both jurisdictions for audit. When those accounts are signed off by the Comptrollers and Auditors General, they will be laid before the Assembly and both Houses of the Oireachtas and then published on the Waterways Ireland website. That demonstrates the layers of governance that are required for its accounts and the processes that have to be gone through to ensure that sign-off.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for making her statement to the House. Which specific properties were approved for disposal, and were any in Northern Ireland?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Both properties approved for disposal are in the South of Ireland. They are a way leave in Ballyconnell, County Cavan, and a way leave at Foigha, County Longford.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for her statement. My question relates to Lough Neagh, which you touched on earlier, and the River Blackwater. It may not be directly under Waterways Ireland, but there are safety and navigational issues there where no boats can pass safely. Were there conversations about that?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Not specific to that issue. There is no statutory navigation authority for Lough Neagh, although councils enforce the rules and regulations in the vicinity of their marinas and facilities. I am happy to take further detailed questions on that issue, if the Member wishes, and maybe we can get responses from those who do have responsibility for that.

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

Minister, there appears to be some doubt or a question about the Executive's ability to extend the Fáilte Ireland brands, which, particularly for waterways, would include Ireland's Hidden Heartlands and Ireland's Ancient East. Have you had conversations with the Minister for the Economy about that, because that touches on critical waterways, in particular the Erne and the Shannon?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Not to date. However, I take the Member's point that that is an important issue, and Fáilte Ireland plays an important role in that, so I am happy to look at that with the Minister and, where relevant, see what we can do to support that.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Minister, why are the details of the 2025 budgets and grants not available in this statement or even in the communiqué, and where can MLAs find them? As of this morning, I could not find them on the website. Will there be a further opportunity in the Assembly to question you properly about the matter? After all, the Assembly is here to hold Ministers such as you accountable, especially when it comes to the spending of public money.

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As I said in response to another Member, there are a number of layers of governance that have to be gone through. I assume that those details will be available when they are ready. There is nothing to suggest that they will not be available as soon as they are ready.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

That concludes questions on the statement.

Assembly Business

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Today marks the beginning of the most dramatic expansion yet of the "Not for EU" labelling regime under the Windsor framework. On 5 June, the Government, in paragraph 5.11, stated:

"A much greater range of products will be brought into scope of labelling requirements in July 2025, increasing the potential risk of product delisting."

In plain language, that threatens supply chains and discourages GB suppliers from continuing to serve Northern Ireland. What steps have the Executive taken to prepare for the expected supply chain disruption?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Timothy, from what I have just heard, that is not a point of order, but I am happy to refer it to the Speaker.

Executive Committee Business

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council Bill [NIA Bill 18/22-27] be agreed.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated a time limit to the debate. I call on the Minister of Finance to open the debate on the Bill.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Go raibh maith agat, a Phríomh-LeasCheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.]

I welcome the opportunity to move the Second Stage of the Fiscal Council Bill and open the debate on this important legislation.

Members will be aware that the Executive agreed to the formation of the Fiscal Council in March 2021, when it was established as a non-statutory body. That followed a commitment in 'New Decade, New Approach' to set up a body to bring greater transparency and independent scrutiny to the current and future state of our public finances. I am sure that Members will agree that, since its establishment, the Fiscal Council has made a significant impact in improving the transparency, scrutiny and understanding of our public finances. Its work has also been hugely impactful in supporting my predecessor's negotiations with the Treasury last year to agree the interim fiscal framework, which we built on in further negotiations with Treasury, ahead of the spending review earlier this month.

The Fiscal Council Bill, which, I hope, will gain the support of Members, will establish the body on a statutory basis and provide a legislative framework to underpin its work. That is in line with international best practice for fiscal institutions. The Bill will safeguard its independence, as well as ensure its continued access to information, both of which are vital to its role.

I will now consider the Bill's provisions in more detail. The Bill will put the council into statute as a body corporate. The council will initially be established based on the nine broad principles that were recommended by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) for independent fiscal organisations. Those principles have been taken into account in the Bill.

The functions in the Bill provide the council with a very broad remit to assess and comment on our public finances and their sustainability. In line with the OECD principles, it will be for the council to determine its own work programme within that mandate. However, the Bill requires the council to publish a budget assessment report and a fiscal sustainability report each year. In addition, the council can publish other reports as it considers appropriate. The legislation provides the flexibility that, should the council wish to examine areas of public finance beyond those referenced in the Bill, it is able to do so.

Like with other independent fiscal institutions, the role of the Fiscal Council is expected to expand in time, and the Bill allows for that. Non-partisanship and independence are prerequisites for a successful independent fiscal institution. The Bill, therefore, has been drafted to provide the council with discretion to present its analysis with objectivity and free from the direction and control of others, including from a political perspective. That safeguards the operational independence of the council, which is one of the nine OECD principles.

Another important aspect of the independent fiscal institution is the clear separation between analysis, which is the role of the Fiscal Council, and policymaking, which is the responsibility of Ministers and their Departments. The Bill is clear on that distinction.

While the council chair and members have indicated that they receive the information they need from Departments to perform their functions, the Bill will place a duty to guarantee in legislation the council's right of access to government information in the timely manner required for its purposes.

To ensure transparency, the Bill requires the council to publish all the documents that it produces. The council already does that, having published over 20 reports since its formation four years ago. That will continue to build trust and credibility with the public, alongside informing the wider debate on public finances.

The Bill also sets out the details of the membership, staffing and other operational matters of the council, including arrangements for evaluation of its work.

That concludes the detail of the Bill, and I look forward to the Chair and the wider Committee's input and, indeed, input from other Members on this important legislation.

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

I will speak first as Chair of the Finance Committee, and then I will make some remarks in an Opposition context. I am pleased to say that, in the Opposition context, I will be more constructive today, because it is, broadly speaking, a good thing that we are progressing the Bill. It is important, when we do constructive, sensible things, that we acknowledge it, and I am pleased that we are debating the Second Stage of the Fiscal Council Bill. The Committee, I think, genuinely looks forward to getting on with its work of scrutiny.

First, I thank the Minister for his comments and the relevant departmental officials for their work in keeping the Committee updated on the progress of the Bill and making themselves available for pre-legislative scrutiny. While the Committee is disappointed at the length of time that it has taken for the Bill to be brought before the House — it was in last year's legislative programme — it is, I suppose, better late than never. It is here now, and the job of scrutinising it is in front of us.

I also note and acknowledge the work of the previous Finance Committee, which carried out significant scrutiny in the area. I should declare an interest, because I was on that previous iteration of the Finance Committee, as were a couple of other members of the current Finance Committee. I hope that that will give us a bit of a head start in the scrutiny of the Bill, as a few of the Committee members will have already scrutinised some of the principles of the Bill in the previous mandate.

The 'Report on an independent Fiscal Council' from that Committee was published in July 2021 and will be a reference point for our Committee throughout the process. The previous Finance Committee made 26 recommendations across seven areas: function, discretion, powers, independence, competence, credibility and Assembly engagement. In addition to recommendations across those seven areas, the Committee made recommendations on the unsatisfactory information and timescales attached to the current Budget process; on the timing of Budget debates after the Executive had made decisions and how that limits the Assembly's ability to scrutinise and challenge; and on consideration being given to amendments to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 by the UK Government in order to require reciprocal cooperation between Treasury, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) and the Fiscal Council for Northern Ireland. That will be a really important point in enabling the Fiscal Council to do its job, because it needs to be able to get and to be guaranteed that it can get information not just from Departments locally but from UK government institutions. I would probably add to that list HMRC.

While those recommendations will be a useful tool for the Committee in its scrutiny of the Bill, members will undertake a new call for evidence on the Bill, as is normal procedure. One of the Committee's first actions when the Assembly was restored in 2024 was to request an update from the Department on the progress of the Bill. That shows the importance of the Bill, and it is one of the Committee's highest priorities, as, I am sure, it is for the Minister.

The Fiscal Council was set up in March 2021 as an outworking of the New Decade, New Approach deal, meaning that the council is currently non-statutory and its funding is under the sole authority of successive Budget Bills. Members will be familiar with the work that the council has done and the useful reports that it has published since its establishment. It is therefore imperative that the council be fully established in legislation in an appropriate form to undertake its functions.

The Committee received briefing on the Bill from officials on 25 September 2024 to get an update on its development, and it received a briefing on 2 October from the Fiscal Council, which was, at that point, broadly happy with the content of the draft Bill.

Committee members support the principles of the Bill, its passage through Second Stage and its referral on to the Committee. They look forward to working with the Department, the Fiscal Council and other stakeholders and to undertaking in-depth scrutiny of the Bill. I look forward to other Members' contributions in the Chamber, because they will aid the Committee's scrutiny.

I will now make a few remarks in a party capacity. I genuinely think that it is very positive that we are debating the Bill today. It could have been introduced a lot sooner, and it probably should have been introduced a lot sooner, but I will leave that to one side. One of the most critical — perhaps the most critical — strategic levers that the Executive, like all Executives, have is Budget-making powers. In many ways, in the context of our devolved settlement, the Budget acts as the de facto strategic policymaking tool. I talk time and again about the need for greater strategic setting of priorities and decision-making; the need to attach Programmes for Government to, ideally, multi-year Budgets; and the need to improve Assembly and public understanding of the Budget process. All those things have been aided by the non-statutory existence of the Fiscal Council over the past four years, and they will be improved and made permanent when we put the Fiscal Council on a statutory footing.

I will make a few other points. I will not go through all the clauses, but the Bill sets out, in nine clauses and two schedules, the powers, responsibilities and status of the Fiscal Council. In broad terms, it is what the public would want and expect to see from an independent fiscal advisory body. There are other examples on these islands. There is the Irish Fiscal Advisory Council (IFAC) in the South and the Office for Budget Responsibility in London. I should acknowledge the role of Sir Robert Chote, who has been the head of the Fiscal Council here. He was a very good recruit by the previous Minister of Finance, and he is joined by Alan Barrett from the Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) in Dublin, Maureen O'Reilly and Esmond Birnie. They have all, on a non-statutory basis, made a very significant contribution, and I acknowledge their work over the past number of years.

What will the Fiscal Council do? Its two core responsibilities, as stated in the Bill, are to prepare a Budget assessment report and a fiscal sustainability report, but there is, as the Minister said, the capacity for the Fiscal Council to do more than that. There is a clause in the Bill that allows the Department to confer additional functions on the council. During the scrutiny process, I would like to look at whether any more responsibilities and powers can be inserted in the Bill via amendment in order to be specific about what the Fiscal Council must do in law each year. I do not want to be totally prohibitive, because some flexibility is a good thing, but we could look at things such as having the council articulate economic performance, even if that entails simply producing a composite economic forecast that mirrors what is in the Budget documents that the Department of Finance produces every year. At the minute, those documents are a bit disconnected from the rest of the Budget process. There are a few paragraphs, or a page or two, produced on the economic context, but when Joe Bloggs is reading them, or even when MLAs or policymakers are reading them, it is not entirely clear how the economic forecast or narrative links to policy decisions or Budget decisions. It may be that the Fiscal Council, not necessarily through having lots of economists build a brand-new model, will be able to analyse in some way the various economic forecasts out there and produce a kind of composite forecast that enables better policymaking.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. He makes a valid point, with which I agree. Is that not covered, however, in the fiscal sustainability reports that the Fiscal Council must produce?

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

Not specifically, because, under clause 4(2), in preparing a fiscal sustainability report, the Fiscal Council must consider:

"(a) public revenue, (b) public borrowing and accumulated debt, (c) expenditure, and (d) such other matters as the Council considers appropriate."

It does not specifically say "economic", meaning measured by GDP, GVA or whatever. I am talking about considering economic performance rather than fiscal performance. Part of what we need to do in our policymaking here is to have a greater connection between fiscal performance and broader Budget decision-making and economic performance. Incorporating that into the Fiscal Council's work may be a way in which to achieve that.

It will also be important for the Committee, as we scrutinise the Bill, to understand whether the council's reporting, in effect, to the Department rather than directly to the Assembly, as, for example, with the NI Audit Office, is precisely the right way to go. There are multiple examples to draw on. The Congressional Budget Office in the United States reports to Congress: it is, primarily, a congressional reporting body, but it does the same basic job as the Fiscal Council. By the way, I am not suggesting that the council operate on the same scale as the Congressional Budget Office, but that is an example of how that line into the legislature works. The other example is the Office for Budget Responsibility, which is independent but reports to and has its budget set by the UK Treasury. A legitimate question for us to understand and, at least, test is whether even more independence should be baked into the Fiscal Council's status and whether its budget should be set, for example, by the Assembly via the Audit Committee, as is the case with the NI Audit Office and a couple of other scrutiny watchdogs. Those are the kinds of things that we will look at.

In broad terms, the Fiscal Council Bill is a positive development. The Committee will have the opportunity to go through it in great detail. I will make one broad point, however, which is that we have suffered and continue to suffer in this place from a crisis in accountability. I talk about that in a party political context all the time in the Chamber, and I obviously rub people up the wrong way about it. That is fine, because that is my job: I rub people up the wrong way. We are all politicians. I have a job to do, and I am pretty unabashed about that. I also acknowledge, however, that the structures of our politics have not necessitated people taking responsibility. We are all politicians who respond to the incentives that are there. We need to change the incentives. Part of changing the incentives is changing the way in which our politics works so that there is proper accountability and an independent watchdog that will set out the facts for Ministers, officials, legislators, the public, the media and all other interested parties. That, I hope, will create more of a focus on, bluntly, actual delivery, rather than, candidly, some of the sham fights and nonsense that pass for politics in this place.

The crisis in accountability should concern us all. I worry that the public, whether they are unionist, nationalist or "Don't give two hoots", are genuinely losing complete faith in our political institutions and their ability to deliver. That, honestly, is not a party political point; it is about us as an institution. I hope that our work as the official Opposition is about changing some of that, but the Fiscal Council, at an institutional level, could and should be a real step forward towards proper accountability in financial decision-making and Budget setting. It has already done some of that over the past four or five years, and putting it on a statutory footing will aid that work.

The Finance Committee will ask specific and detailed questions and will carry out a full Committee Stage. Work has been done previously, but we need to make sure that it is done properly. It is about getting the Fiscal Council's independence right, understanding exactly its responsibilities and what the Budget assessment and fiscal sustainability reports will look like and understanding how, if additional powers are to be conferred in future, the Department proposes to do that. It is about understanding whether all the OECD's recommendations on independent fiscal bodies are being followed and understanding the Fiscal Council's accountability to the Assembly as well as to the Executive. All of those are really important questions, and we want to get to the bottom of them.

The Bill's passage at Second Stage will be a genuine step forward. I hope that we can get the Bill through the Finance Committee speedily but rigorously, come back to the Assembly to debate any amendments and get it on the statute book in the best possible shape.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Since the Fiscal Council's establishment in 2021, it has had a significant role in improving the transparency and understanding of our public finances. By putting the Fiscal Council on a statutory footing, the Bill will bring it into line with best practice in other jurisdictions, safeguard its independence and protect its scrutiny role. The Bill reiterates the Fiscal Council's independence and clearly sets out its role as one of providing analysis separately and distinguishably from the role of Executive Ministers and Departments, which are responsible for shaping and making policy decisions.

The Fiscal Council has had a positive impact since its formation four years ago, having published over 20 reports on topics ranging from budget assessments to the sustainability of our public finances and the health system.

Its analysis of our public finances has supported the work of our recent Finance Ministers in their negotiations to improve our financial framework with the British Treasury. I therefore welcome progress on establishing the Fiscal Council as a statutory body and look forward to the continued contribution that it will make in analysing our public finances and other topics over the coming years.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

We welcome the Bill to underpin the Fiscal Council's work on a statutory basis. The DUP has been a consistent voice when it comes to the need to transform Northern Ireland's public finances. In particular, we continue to lead calls for a fairer fiscal framework underpinned by Treasury funding that meets the objective need of our vital front-line services.

As I am an accountant, my trained thinking takes me straight into the analysis of finances. As well as getting stuck into the detail of the numbers, I really value truly independent analysis, critique and evaluation of financial processes and systems. In Northern Ireland, where do you go for that? It has to be the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council. We have a range of sources, including university analysts, think tanks, departmental reviews and audits. Those all serve a purpose, but they have different perspectives, whereas the Fiscal Council offers independence that is needed and invaluable. The statutory grounding of the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council will further bolster its ability to carry out independent scrutiny of our financial situation. At a time of economic uncertainty and unprecedented pressures facing our public service delivery, having a legally binding oversight body should help in our efforts to place our finances on a steady footing and spearhead reform and transformation.

There is nothing more important to taxpayers than transparency and accountability when it comes to our public money. To date, the Fiscal Council has demonstrated its positive impact in improving transparency, scrutiny and understanding of our public finances. Its range of reports far exceeds what it is required to do, as the Minister outlined. Just last week, the Fiscal Council reported that Northern Ireland Water's funding model is neither fit for purpose nor sustainable. That shows the ability of the council to scrutinise across departmental remits and address the uncomfortable truths that hamper our collective ability to deliver for households, communities and the economy. Its challenge function is vital. The Fiscal Council has helped us to gain a better understanding of our public finances, as well as establishing an independent and credible evidence base to inform our discussions with the Government, wherein we champion the case for Northern Ireland being funded according to need and our finances being put on a sustainable footing.

The critical value of the Fiscal Council is its independence. Financial reviews, opinions, presentations or bids that come from within government are shaped by a particular perspective. If the Department of Finance presents a position, it can be perceived as its view, its Minister's view or even a party political view. That is why we need to ensure that the independence of the Fiscal Council is paramount. On clause 5 and the ability of the Department to amend the scope and functions of the council, we will seek clarity and assurance that the independence of the Fiscal Council will be maintained and strengthened as an outworking of the Bill. There can be no prospect of the body being used as a vehicle for pushing particular political agendas. That is particularly relevant to the flawed arguments put forward by the Opposition and others on fiscal devolution.

The Bill mentions that there may be additional funding requirements for the operation of the council, once it is placed on a statutory footing. It will be important that the Assembly is consulted on any additional funding that the council will need and the benefits that that will bring to our public purse in return. We need to maintain scrutiny and ensure governance over all of our funded public bodies. We must never write a blank cheque for any part of our public services without approved proposals or business cases that define what will be achieved by the additional funding. We must always work to ensure that the best value for money is achieved for taxpayers in Northern Ireland.

The Fiscal Council reports that Northern Ireland's finances could be on a cliff edge in the near future. With that in mind, it is vital that the council is given the scope that it needs to drill down into our public finance and highlight the areas in which efficiencies could be made by doing things differently.

We have all spoken at length in the Chamber on multiple occasions about the huge financial pressures in delivering public services in Northern Ireland. We need to ensure that effective financial scrutiny occurs at every level. The role that the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council plays in all that is so important.

We welcome the Bill underpinning the Fiscal Council's work on a statutory basis and will work through the details of the issues highlighted to ensure that safeguards are in place and that the council achieves the status that it should. Public-sector finances underpin all that we do here. Independence and scrutiny are critical, and I thank the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council for its professionalism and its work to date. I look forward to progressing the Bill.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

On behalf of the Alliance Party I support the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council Bill and welcome its long-awaited introduction to the Assembly after the council's formation in March 2021 on a non-statutory basis following the New Decade, New Approach agreement. Since 2021, the Fiscal Council has been instrumental in providing detailed assessments of Northern Ireland's funding formula, Budget analysis and, most recently, the funding and sustainability of NI Water, to name a few. For those reasons, it is incredibly important that the Fiscal Council is put on a statutory footing, ensuring that it is completely independent from the Department of Finance while continuing all the key publications that bring a transparent focus to our region's public finances through detailed scrutiny.

The role that the council plays ensures that we, as legislators, are better equipped to make effective policy decisions on the direction and prioritisation of funding. The public are also better informed by that independent analysis and can regain confidence in how the Executive manage their money. As others have said, it is crucial that we give the Fiscal Council as broad a remit as possible given its focus on the sustainability of Northern Ireland's public finances and the examination of Budget processes. It needs as much information as possible to enable it to do that and to give it the flexibility to draw up its work plan, decide the contents of its reports and prioritise the areas that, it feels, are important to highlight and on which to provide assessments. The Fiscal Council should be commended for the support and analysis that it provided on the return of these institutions and in the Executive restoration package, as well as the agreement on the interim fiscal framework for Northern Ireland.

Although Alliance would argue that the fiscal floor needs to be higher than 124%, as the recent Holtham review demonstrated, suggesting that it should be 128%, without the Fiscal Council's independent analysis and estimations of Northern Ireland's level of need, which are in its publication in 2023, getting any internal fiscal framework for Northern Ireland last year might have been much more difficult. That framework has helped us to combat some of the historical underfunding. However, tackling reform and the cost of division would go a long way to delivering for everyone across our society. That is why Alliance is disappointed that the Fiscal Council has not been given a requirement in its statutory remit to have due regard to the cost of division and the effect that it has on public finances, given the recent estimates that that costs up to £833 million every year with the duplication of services in education, leisure and community provision and increasing policing and justice costs. While Ministers understand the impact that the cost of division has on departmental budgets, particularly in Education, if the Fiscal Council had due regard for that cost, Departments could be held to account. The cost of division should be at the top of the list on the Fiscal Council's agenda. Building a shared future and a shared society is an essential part of sustaining, building and restoring our public finances.

At this stage, Alliance very much welcomes the progress of the Bill. We look forward to the Fiscal Council finally being put on a statutory footing.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Like my colleague Diane Forsythe, I support the Bill. It is long overdue. As the Chair of the Committee said, it was to be in last year's legislative programme, but, at least, we have it in front of us today.

I am one of the MLAs who would say that we should not have more fiscal powers, simply because we do not have the capacity to deal with more or even, sometimes, the maturity to deal with more. I fear that, if there were to be more fiscal powers, those levers would be pulled upwards and would hurt our people further. The Northern Ireland Fiscal Council is the right way to go to have that layer of expertise and independence in how Northern Ireland's finances are conducted. I certainly support that, because it will give reassurance and a layer of expertise that will help not only the Department and the Finance Committee but all scrutiny Committees through the reports that they will be able to read from the Fiscal Council.

We have already seen the Fiscal Council's worth, albeit on a non-statutory footing. The council currently costs around £511,000 a year. That was for 2024-25. That is money well spent — it really is — because of the calibre of the reports and the information contained in them. It helps us all — each one of us as MLAs — to scrutinise the work of the Executive and, indeed, the Department of Finance and all other Departments for that matter. It is crucial.

I may have some issues and questions as we go into deeper scrutiny of the Bill. The Chair of the scrutiny Committee made the point about who actually pays for it and where the money comes from to pay for the Fiscal Council. It has come out of the black box stuff and the Department of Finance. That may change with regard to the black box stuff with the other vehicle of legislation that we will debate today. There is a question about whether it is best placed to be funded by the Department of Finance, which probably has most to lose from some of the Fiscal Council reports and may well be red-faced and embarrassed by some of those reports. If we want to ensure that there is real independence and separation between the Department of Finance and the Fiscal Council, we, as a scrutiny Committee and, indeed, as the Assembly, should consider how best to fund the Fiscal Council going forward. The Committee Chair raised the issue of the Audit Committee, the Comptroller and Auditor General and the Audit Office. That may well be an avenue that we could explore.

In schedule 1, under

"Manner in which functions are to be carried out",

it states that

"The Council must aim to carry out its functions efficiently and cost-effectively."

Who attests to that? Should that be the Audit Office or the Audit Committee, or should it be the Department of Finance that attests to that?

Under clause 5, on the

"Power to confer additional functions",

it states that

"The Department may by regulations confer additional functions on the Council."

Again, there are questions there as to whether it should solely be —.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Yes, I will.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I apologise to Madam Principal Deputy Speaker for not being in my place earlier. I was

[Inaudible.]

Does the Member agree that one of the most important things about having the Fiscal Council is the ability to instil some form of fiscal discipline in the process going forward? Maybe the Minister, in his remarks about additional functions, which the Member has rightly mentioned, might confirm whether it would be part of the legislative process that the Fiscal Council reports at a particular time to ensure that we maintain that fiscal discipline. Does the Member agree that that would be a good way in which to go forward?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Yes. That is certainly something worth exploring. We could probably concentrate our resources on that in the time ahead during Committee Stage. The power to confer additional functions is maybe not the one to highlight. Clause 5(2) states:

"(2) The Department may by regulations alter or remove any functions conferred under subsection (1)."

That might worry me. You might have a Department that has been embarrassed by one or two reports and decides to remove functions of the Fiscal Council to relieve that embarrassment from time to time. Again, I am playing devil's advocate. I am not suggesting for one moment that the Minister or the Department would do that.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Yes.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

If the Member reads further down clause 5, he will see at the very end, under subsection (5), that:

"Regulations under this section may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly."

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for that clarification. I was going on to that, because clause 5(5) contains the words "approved by a resolution of" the Assembly, which are sprinkled throughout the Bill. That brings an aspect or a veneer of confidence to the Bill. We will pursue that.

Paragraph 8 of schedule 1 states:

"A person is disqualified from being appointed as the chair or another member of the Council if the person — (a) is a member of — (i) a district council, or (ii) the Assembly".

Why have Members of Parliament been left off that list? I an understand why Assembly Members are excluded, but members of a district council? Why, then, are Members of Parliament and, for that matter, Members of the Irish Parliament not excluded too? We need to explore that. There might be a rationale for it — I do not know — but, on reading the Bill for the first time, it seems that that might be an omission. I am not saying that there are not Westminster MPs or Members of the Irish Parliament who could do the job, but why are we excluding district councillors who may well be qualified in that regard? Maybe the Minister will take that away and look at it.

Paragraph 13 of schedule 1 states that:

"The Council is to employ a person to act as the Council’s chief of staff."

Chief of staff will be a very important role. Are we allowing a district councillor, an Assembly Member or a Member of Parliament to become the council's chief of staff? Chief of staff might be a full-time job — maybe you could not do both jobs. Maybe we need clarification regarding staff and who can be the Fiscal Council's chief of staff. Paragraph 13 also states:

"The Council may employ other staff. The chief of staff and other Council staff are to be employed on such terms as the Council, with the approval of the Department, determines."

Again, that goes back to the approval of the Department.

That is all from me at Second Reading. I look forward to the scrutiny of the Bill. We have looked forward to it for a long time. I was on the Finance Committee in the previous term, when we talked about and pushed for it. It is great to have it in front of us and to have the blue pages in our hands. We look forward to the scrutiny of the Bill.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

On the face of it, the broad principles of the Bill are not objectionable. Greater transparency and independent scrutiny of public finances are the bare minimum that the public deserve. The Bill establishes the Fiscal Council on a permanent, statutory basis, as Members have said.

Some of the Fiscal Council's announcements over the past four years have been worrying, however, including its statements about the need for sustainable public finances. We know what that means. The chair of the Fiscal Council has told us that failing to introduce water charges has its own costs. That is purely looking at the numbers without looking at the impact that water charges in whatever form would have on working-class families. I ask the Minister and anybody who is listening this question: why should those who struggle to pay the bills and put food on the table pay the price for years of mismanagement and underinvestment in our water infrastructure? I am worried about an increased ideological drive to implement water charges. We see an article in 'The Irish News' to that effect again today.

The Fiscal Council has also advocated an increase in the regional rate and called for "public-sector pay restraint" — pay cuts in a time of price increases — to "improve the manageability" of public finances. I am concerned about that, and I am concerned that there is no concern from other Members and the Finance Committee about that direction of travel and those repeated statements from the Fiscal Council.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Will the Member give way?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Sure.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

The Member has just said that the Fiscal Council has advocated pay cuts. Will the Member point out where that was said, because that is a serious charge to lay at the Fiscal Council? I have read all the reports and have never seen the council once use the words, "There should be pay cuts for public-sector workers". Will he highlight, for the record, where the council said that? That would be useful.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Sure. I raised this issue at the Finance Committee a few weeks ago. I do not have the date to hand, but the quote from the Fiscal Council was "public-sector pay restraint". Every public-sector worker and trade unionist knows what that means: it means pay cuts. It is different language — flowery language — but that is the reality of what is —.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Gerry, that is not within the scope of the Bill. I have just checked. I accept your remarks, but will you move on, please?

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

No problem. As I said, Principal Deputy Speaker, that was a statement from the Fiscal Council. That is concerning. It indicates a certain direction of travel from the Fiscal Council. It has talked before about further departmental savings, which is a translation for cuts. There is not much left to cut. Services have been cut to ribbons. The Fiscal Council has not talked about — I do not believe that it is mentioned in the Bill, either — the creeping privatisation of our public services. There is no mention of the massive and ever-increasing wealth inequality. It is not a topic of interest. I am concerned that the Executive will use the Fiscal Council's future proposals, and perhaps those that it has already made, as political cover for plunging people further into poverty. They could say, "It's not our idea; it's the idea of the Fiscal Council". I am concerned that that is the direction of travel.

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

I appreciate the Member's giving way. I note his concerns. I am not saying that the Executive will use an independent watchdog as cover, but it is fair enough for him to talk about that. The Fiscal Council will produce, via a law that we will scrutinise and pass, factual information that members of the public, including trade unionists, whom he and I care about a lot, will be able to scrutinise. That will be, in a sense, a scrutiny mechanism for ordinary workers, trade unionists and people who work in the public services to understand decisions that the Executive make, so, in that sense, it can be of benefit to them, too.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I thank the Member for the intervention. That is potentially the case, but what we need is not rocket science. With respect to the chair and members of the council, we do not need experts: we need an understanding of the withdrawal of large sums of public money from our public services over the past 10 years. The Minister of Finance, in fairness to him, mentions that on occasion, but I am concerned that the Fiscal Council does not have a focus on that, and I am concerned about the direction of travel. I do not think that —.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Gerry, I remind you that the Second Stage of the Bill is to talk about the establishment of a Fiscal Council and what a Fiscal Council may or may not do. I ask you to use your remarks to address that.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Sure. I will bring my remarks to a conclusion. I am concerned that the council will not be ideologically neutral. People may cry foul in that regard, but I think that there is a commitment to neoliberal austerity. The idea has already been touted that the council is out of touch with what working-class people need and believe.

There is no mention of wealth taxes, or of an increased billionaire, wealthy, corporate class. It is my view, and that of many other people, that hugely profitable companies should pay more corporation tax. The Fiscal Council has not mentioned that. I do not believe that it will mention that with the passing of the Bill. The Bill just legislates for more of the same and, ultimately, will mean more fiscal punishment for working-class communities, with a red carpet rolled out for the wealthy. This should be a moment for thinking outside the box. I am concerned that the Bill, when it becomes law, will just mean more of the same.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I thank the Members who contributed to the Bill's Second Stage debate. I will try to cover as many of the points that were made by Members as possible. The Chair of the Committee said that he was going to be constructive. He was, for most of his contribution. The general view of Members — not ignoring the views of Mr Carroll — is that they welcome the fact that we are moving to a statutory footing for the Fiscal Council. It is important that we move to that statutory footing and establish it on that basis. We need to give it the legal protection and powers that it requires to carry out its functions. I look forward to the debates at Committee and during the further stages of the Bill, and to hearing the pros and cons and the different opinions, some of which have been voiced here today, as to how we should manage the Fiscal Council.

For a variety of reasons, there was a delay in the legislation's being introduced, but we have had an opportunity to test-drive the model. It works, by and large, and Members, with the odd exception, will generally agree that it does. Let us therefore not approach the legislation as reinventing the wheel. The Fiscal Council has proved its independence from the Department of Finance. I will listen to the debate as the Bill progresses. Members may argue that the Fiscal Council should be funded directly through the Audit Office or that it should be directly responsible to the Assembly. The counterargument to that, however, is that the current system is working and that all Budgets are approved by the Department of Finance and the Executive, because the Department produces the Budget and the Executive vote on it. Ultimately, if people want to interfere with the independence of the Fiscal Council through its budgetary framework, they can do so. If they are minded to interfere, they can. Thus far, however, the Fiscal Council has proven itself to be independent, robust and strong in how it does its work. Its challenge functions and its support functions have proved very beneficial to me as Minister of Finance, to the Executive and to the work of the Committee.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for giving way. We have noted that the Fiscal Council provides independent evidence, particularly if we are having conversations with the Treasury or other organisations. We need to look, however, at establishing a funding line whereby funding goes directly to the Fiscal Council rather than come through the Department or by some other means. That is a potential option for the Committee to discuss at Committee Stage.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

As I have said, the purpose of scrutinising legislation is to see whether it is fit for purpose, but it is also to see whether it can be improved. I am willing to listen, but I caution Members against reinventing the wheel for the sake of it or trying to get one over the Department of Finance. The Member has made a valid point, and our engagement with the Treasury has been strengthened by the role that the Fiscal Council plays. The credibility that it brings to the debate has allowed us to engage with the Treasury on all those matters.

A number of Members mentioned clause 5. Subsection (5) confirms that, once the legislation has passed, no changes can be made to it without regulations being brought to the Assembly for approval.

Mr Frew asked why councillors are to be excluded from being members of the Fiscal Council and why MPs are not to be excluded. The NI Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 disqualifies MPs from being Members of the Assembly. Members already know that. We will further clarify Mr Frew's point about whether MPs and TDs should also be listed in schedule 1. If further disqualifications need to be included in the legislation, so be it. If there is no bar in some other area to that happening, I do not see any problem with doing that.

The Fiscal Council has its role, but let us not surrender the Assembly's role to any other body or institution. The Assembly has the democratic authority. Everyone in the Chamber has been elected by the people to do a job, and part of that job is to hold Ministers to account and to pass legislation and Budgets. When we are establishing bodies and commissions that, on the face of it, do good work, and the Fiscal Council does do good work, we have to be mindful and careful that we are not ceding power to anyone else. We are the democratic authority, and we must always be very precious about and protective of that. When we give powers to others, we must ensure that we are doing so truly for good and that doing so does not undermine our authority or our role. Although doing so may be well intentioned, it further undermines our position in the minds of the general public, because they say to themselves, "What is the point of having you, if all those other bodies do those jobs?"

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for giving way. He raises a valid and important point. Clause 6(4) states:

"(a) the Council may consider the likely effect of that policy, or any alternative policies, on the public finances, but (b) must not make any recommendation as to the adoption or rejection of that policy, or as to the adoption of any alternative policy."

The line that states that the council will not be able to make recommendations is crucial.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Indeed. We should never cede power to commissioners, ombudsmen and others in such roles. We are the democratic authority, and we should be precious about that.

I look forward to working through the Bill and scrutinising it with Members. Mr Carroll commented on the council's reports thus far. Here is the thing: the Executive, Members and I, as Minister, do not have to agree with everything that the Fiscal Council says. In fact, we do not have to agree with anything that the Fiscal Council says. It does a job. That job has been worthwhile thus far. Placing the council on a statutory footing is a worthwhile proposal. I hope that the Bill's broad principles will be accepted today. We will then work with the Committee and others to bring the finalised legislation to the House. Hopefully, that will happen in the near future.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That the Second Stage of the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council Bill [NIA Bill 18/22-27] be agreed.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

That concludes the Second Stage of the Northern Ireland Fiscal Council Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for Finance.

Members should take their ease.

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

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Dilapidation Bill [NIA Bill 21/22-27] be agreed.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has allocated no time limit to the debate.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

First, I thank my Executive colleagues for their support for the Bill. I look forward to working with Members across the Chamber to take the Bill forward, particularly with members of the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee, which is ably chaired by Robbie Butler.

I say with some confidence that the Bill should be welcomed by all Members. The Bill will improve the quality of local environments across Northern Ireland in neighbourhoods, villages, towns and cities and in our rural and coastal areas. The Bill impacts on all of Northern Ireland: all the people of Northern Ireland and those who visit. Clean and tidy neighbourhoods help to engender a sense of civic pride in their residents. People feel safer in such neighbourhoods and more at ease in their surroundings. Such local environments attract more investment and have a positive impact on our health and well-being.

There are, of course, many examples of dilapidated buildings and neglected sites that negatively impact on the amenity of neighbourhoods. Recently, I visited a number of sites in Northern Ireland to see at first hand the scourge of dilapidation on our communities. I am sure that Members will agree with me when I say that it makes for depressing viewing. Although the former Department of the Environment's dereliction intervention programme, which included the shrouding of buildings and the introduction of false shopfronts, helped councils to tackle the detrimental impact on amenity that is caused by derelict and dilapidated buildings and gap sites, it was always intended to be a relatively short-term fix. An agreed way forward is needed to ensure that district councils have a proper toolkit of powers that enables them to take effective action against owners who fail to stop their buildings from falling into significant disrepair.

Work on the development of a dilapidation Bill originated as a result of a number of councils taking part in two blight summits and significant engagements between my officials and a range of key stakeholders nearly a decade ago.

The overwhelming majority of respondents to the 2016 formal public consultation exercise expressed a preference for the development of a wide-ranging dilapidation Bill that would consolidate and amend much of the existing legislation and supplement it with new provisions on low-level dilapidation and dangerous buildings that were already available to local authorities in the rest of the UK. The other key proposal was to strengthen the cost-recovery options that are available to councils, enhancing the financial viability of councils undertaking remediation work themselves. A review of the legislation that was available to councils concluded that that legislation, much of which dates back to the Victorian era and/or applies to specific geographical areas, is limited in its scope and effectiveness.

There is also a significant legislative deficit in Northern Ireland compared with other relevant jurisdictions. Although local legislation purports to address the same basic issues, there is a lack of consistency across it, and the Northern Ireland-wide legislation is subject to differences in interpretation between councils, making some reluctant to use it. That deficit has been addressed by including in the Bill provisions that are broadly equivalent to those in England and Wales under sections 215 to 219 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, on low-level dilapidation and neglected sites, and sections 77 and 78 of the Building Act 1984, on dangerous buildings and emergency action. Similar provisions exist in relevant Scottish legislation.

The intention of the Dilapidation Bill is to provide all district councils with a modern, fit-for-purpose, Northern Ireland-wide enforcement regime to deal with the negative impact of dilapidated and dangerous buildings and neglected sites. The definition of "building" is broadly drawn and seeks to encompass most man-made structures. There is currently no statutory or non-statutory guidance to support the various pieces of legislation that are available to councils. Given the intended scope and potential complexity of the Bill, my officials are developing clear statutory guidance. That will be laid in draft before the Assembly in due course to allow the Committee to scrutinise it. It is envisaged that that approach will give district councils, property owners, financial institutions and other government agencies much greater clarity on the scope of the legislation and the responsibilities of the various actors.

There is likely to be a positive impact on employment, business, charities, social economy enterprises and the voluntary sector, as the powers in the Bill will enable councils to tackle dilapidation, thereby enhancing communities, benefiting the economy, improving the quality of the built environment, increasing tourism and reducing antisocial behaviour.

As detailed, a formal assessment of the regulatory impact of the proposals in the Bill has been completed. That assessment recognises that, in the commercial sector, there are likely to be additional costs for landlords, property developers, property management companies, financial institutions and others who own dilapidated buildings in cases in which councils take enforcement action. However, to a large extent, those costs will be offset by enhanced property values, additional activity in the construction sector and a range of non-monetary social benefits.

The Bill will not impose a financial burden on my Department, and it must be stressed that the new powers in the Bill do not place any new statutory duties on councils; rather, the Bill gives them additional discretionary powers, allowing them flexibility to avail themselves of those powers as resources permit.

In the current budgetary climate, no discrete funding provisions have been included in the Bill. In cases in which district councils take enforcement action, there will potentially be costs to the owners of dilapidated properties. The inclusion of robust and effective cost-recovery provisions will ensure that councils are not financially disadvantaged. Effective implementation of the new regime will require council buy-in to opt in to undertaking enforcement activity, and it is recognised that councils will need to allocate adequate resources.

The Bill allows councils to issue a range of notices, depending on the severity of the dilapidation, that require owners, occupiers and others with a relevant interest to take appropriate remedial action to deal with varying levels of dilapidation and neglect or that allow the council to take such action itself and recover the costs from the relevant person.

The Bill allows for a hierarchical approach to severity, with low-level cases being the least severe, dilapidated structures being moderately severe and dangerous structures being the most severe. Those groupings are not mutually exclusive, and there can be overlap across all three. However, it is likely that a single notice will suffice in most cases. The Bill allows councils to issue the combination of notices that it deems to be appropriate, with each situation to be considered, rightly, on a case-by-case basis. Many of those powers do not exist in Northern Ireland but have been established in England and Wales since 1990 and in Scotland since 1997. Others with a relevant interest may include a person with a financial interest in the property or any person with a responsibility for the management, maintenance or safety of the property. The scope of works that can be required is wide and can include planting, clearance, tidying, enclosure, rebuilding, repainting, external repairs and, in extreme cases, demolition or part demolition. That will obviously be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Specific grounds for appeal to the Magistrates' Court are in the Bill, as is provision for further appeal to the County Court by the appellant or the council. Protections will be afforded to listed buildings. The Bill binds councils into ensuring that they will consult the relevant planning colleagues or the Department for Communities about historic monuments before taking any action. That will properly address heritage issues in a more proactive way and allow action to be taken at a much earlier stage, thereby preventing avoidable decay in important buildings.

Non-compliance with the various notices will be a criminal offence. Penalties range from a £2,500 fine on summary conviction for failure to comply with a maintenance notice to a £5,000 fine on summary conviction or on conviction to indictment to a fine or a term of imprisonment not exceeding two years, or both, for failure to comply with a dangerous structures notice. The Bill also provides for councils to issue a discretionary £500 fixed penalty to discharge liability for conviction for breach of a maintenance notice or failure to provide information without reasonable excuse.

The Bill significantly enhances the cost recovery powers for councils. Where the relevant person has failed to carry out the remedial action that was specified in the notice, a council may take such action itself and recover its costs from that person through the courts. The provision of robust and effective measures to ensure that the appropriate person or organisation pays for the necessary remedial actions is key to minimising costs to the public purse and preventing unscrupulous property owners deriving financial benefit from letting buildings fall into disrepair.

As with serving a notice under the Bill, officials were keen to ensure that the range of persons from whom costs may be recovered is broad. Where costs cannot be immediately recovered, they will be treated as a charge on the land and placed in the statutory charges register as though they were a mortgage, thus ensuring full cost recovery.

Experience has shown that those powers have delivered important, tangible and lasting improvements to amenity in other jurisdictions. The Dilapidation Bill has the potential to contribute to wider regeneration and urban quality objectives. There is little incentive for private property owners to invest in the quality of their property if they are in an environment that is of such low quality that it simply sucks value out of their property. The Bill can and will help to tackle the blight of dilapidation, which spoils the appearance of our neighbourhoods. In doing so, it will improve the quality of life for all the people in Northern Ireland.

I will also comment on the fact that we are debating the Bill on the final day before recess. Some people have had concerns about the delay in introducing the Bill. Obviously, when we came back in February last year, government was switched back on, but it does not power up immediately. It takes us time to develop and deliver the legislative programme. Also, in presenting the Bill to the Assembly, I have to have confidence that I can say to you all that it has the proper vires and competencies. We have been through a process to assure ourselves of that. It is important that I say that we are debating the Bill today because we have ensured that we are confident in the Bill that we have presented to the Assembly. I look forward to the debate, and I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I call Robbie Butler, the Chair of the Agriculture Committee.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. My opening remarks will not be made as the Chair of the Committee; rather, I want to address the Minister's final statement about the speed at which the legislation has come forward. I want to be clear that I am speaking on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party and me. It is much better that we make good legislation rather than rushed legislation and that we leave a legacy of being competent in our jobs.

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

Will the Member give way?

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Yes.

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

While it is not the fault of this Minister, and while we want legislation, we will have debated six Bill stages over the course of yesterday and today, despite having had lots of days of debating meaningless motions. Does the Member agree that it might be a wee bit much to have half a dozen full-blown Bill stages in two days of business, along with a few legislative consent motions?

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for his intervention. It is an interesting point. I do not necessarily disagree, but I think that the people of Northern Ireland have suffered from too little politics for many years. If it means that we have to stay here for longer in the day, we certainly will have to truck through.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Take your seat, Robbie. Members, let us concentrate on the Dilapidation Bill. We can all rave about the issues that are coming through as well, but the debate is about the Dilapidation Bill. I am really interested in listening to your views on the Dilapidation Bill. Over to you, Robbie.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you. I return to the much-anticipated Dilapidation Bill, regardless of whether the Member thinks that it came quickly enough or not. I was reading through the papers in regard to our responses to dilapidation, and it goes back to about 1973, actually. So, it is not even that we have been waiting for 10 years for this but a lot longer.

On behalf of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, I welcome the Second Stage of the Dilapidation Bill. Committee members have all seen the negative impact on our communities of dilapidated buildings and neglected sites, and, as the Minister has rightly pointed out, many of them pose a danger to the public. The Committee welcomes the modernisation of the legislation, as it has been a long time coming, and a lot of the current legislation dates to the Victorian era. That is not 1973, which is in and around the vintage of when some of us were born: the roaring '70s.

The Committee held an evidence session on 26 June with officials from DAERA's neighbourhood environment quality branch, and we considered the outline of the 31 clauses and two schedules. We then heard that the Bill is intended to give councils powers to deal with dilapidation, dangerous buildings and neglected sites and a fit-for-purpose enforcement regime. Those should reflect powers that are already available in the rest of the UK, as the Minister has outlined, and will enhance the cost-recovery powers for councils. That could, potentially, be one of the more difficult things to deliver on.

The Committee heard that the aim is to enable councils to tackle dilapidation at an earlier stage through a hierarchy of notices dealing with different levels of dilapidation. Those notices are dealt with in clauses 1 to 10, covering an increasing level of dilapidation from a maintenance notice to a dilapidation notice to a dangerous structure notice. Finally, at the highest level, it covers immediate action that a council can take to deal with a building that is considered to be dangerous. The Committee was pleased to see that the Bill also provides for cost recovery for the council where it has taken the necessary remedial action itself, registering a charge on the land in the statutory charges register until costs are recovered and also registering a dilapidation notice in the register to allow a property to be sold with appropriate information. That is good news, perhaps, for the high street in particular.

We heard that the remaining clauses cover a range of matters, including potential obstruction by an occupier, the power to require ownership information, consultation with planning regarding heritage sites, and appeals against a notice issued under the Act.

Should the Bill come to the Committee, members will be paying close attention to clause 20, which provides for statutory guidance that district councils must have regard to. Members will wish to have sight of the draft guidance to properly scrutinise the Bill. We had a less-than-satisfactory experience with the Agriculture Bill, when we were asked to make a decision without sight of the replacement scheme. That was explained to us by the departmental officials at the time, but, in this instance, we really would like to have sight of the guidance to consider it alongside the Bill, Minister.

We then heard that the Bill provides a definition of "interested person", that of "owner", that of "building" and that of "land". The Committee will wish to consider the term "amenity", however, in particular, as it is expected that the interpretation of "amenity" will be broad and must be covered in the guidance. The Committee will also be scrutinising the regulation-making powers to ensure that they are appropriate and that they are subject to the negative resolution procedure unless they amend a fixed penalty amount or the definition of "heritage site". At that stage, they will be subject to the draft affirmative resolution procedure, as we have been informed.

There is no doubt that there will be considerable public interest in the Bill. Members, including members of the Committee, have already had photos sent to them of dilapidated buildings and sites fostering antisocial behaviour, including vandalism, drug activity and arson. At Committee Stage, members will want to ensure that the Bill is robust and broad enough to cover public and council concerns. It is not only falling masonry that makes a building dangerous. Antisocial behaviour can make the public feel that a derelict building or site is dangerous.

The Committee queried the 2016 consultation, and officials stated that the responses were broadly supportive and had cross-party support. Officials had recently written to the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) to ensure that it was still supportive and had heard that it is. The Committee queried why the Bill aims to bring in only discretionary powers for councils and whether there is a risk of regional disparities, because we already see councils operating in different ways in their interpretation.

If the powers were mandatory, presumably DAERA would need to provide direct financial support to councils; we would like confirmation of that. Officials said that there were resource issues but that the Bill would place the cost of remediation works on the property owner, occupier or interested financial organisation or party in the first instance.

The Committee asked about an inventory of dilapidated properties and sites. Officials advised that Ulster University conducted a study for DAERA in 2017 to estimate the number of affected properties and provide a breakdown. DAERA has now shared that report with the Committee. The Committee queried the impact on rural areas, and officials advised that a property needed to have a negative impact on a neighbourhood, so it is unlikely that a council would act on a stand-alone remote property. Given its remit, the Committee will be very interested in rural equity. The Committee will wish to determine whether that is appropriate, as even remote properties can be dangerous. I will add that agencies turn up to remote properties if they are on fire or if there is antisocial behaviour, and we have a responsibility to those statutory agencies too.

Officials advised that the statutory guidance would go into more detail on the test to quantify the level of neglect of dilapidated buildings. Members highlighted the limbo that they feel about unadopted developments where the developer has gone bankrupt and disappeared. Officials advised that a charge could be put on a property via the Land Registry.

I hope that I have given the House a flavour of the issues that the Committee can see and that need scrutiny. However, the Committee supports the principles of the Bill and looks forward to considering it in further detail during Committee Stage.

I would like to make some remarks on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party and myself. As I said, research showed that this has been a topic for discussion for the Ulster Unionist Party for nigh on 52 years, and it has certainly been a focus in our manifesto commitments. We welcome the Second Stage of the Dilapidation Bill, because communities across Northern Ireland, rural and urban alike, are plagued by derelict buildings and neglected sites. They are not just eyesores; they undermine public safety, deter investment and foster antisocial behaviour.

I want to home in on and paint a picture of one building that is local to me: Hilden Mill in Lisburn. I am old enough to remember the mill in almost its former glory with people working in it. For around 25 years, however, nobody has been working there, and it has fallen into serious disrepair. Unfortunately, it acts almost like a beacon for young people. Although the site has been secured a number of times, young people have broken into it and use it for different things. In addition, the fires that are lit there bring extreme danger not just to the young people themselves but to the emergency services that have to respond. Beyond a building being an eyesore and beyond the safety of those who are near that building, we have an obligation to those who have to respond to incidents there.

The Ulster Unionist Party welcomes the Bill's ambition to modernise a framework that, as the Minister said, dates back to perhaps the Victorian era. The proposed hierarchy of enforcement from maintenance notices to actions on dangerous structures is a step in the right direction. However, important questions remain. What will success look like in practice for councils, and, more important, for our communities? Where does the community voice sit with regard to what happens after action is secured? Will the legislation empower councils equally, or will rural areas continue to be left behind due to resource constraints? Why are the powers discretionary and not mandatory? What assurances do we have that enforcement will not be patchy across regions?

We really want to see the Bill work not just for Lisburn but for places such as Lisnaskea. We would also like sight of the statutory guidance under clause 20 before decisions are taken, because we cannot afford another scenario such as we had with the Agriculture Bill, when we acted without sight of the anticipated replacement scheme. Let us, in this moment, grasp it, work collaboratively and collegially with the Minister, be upfront about the information that is there and the challenges that we face and deliver a high-quality Dilapidation Bill.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you very much indeed, Robbie.

I call Matthew O'Toole — and, Matthew, it is the Dilapidation Bill.

[Laughter.]

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

We are all feeling a little dilapidated, Mr Deputy Speaker: it is the end of the Assembly term.

I will concentrate my remarks on the Dilapidation Bill, speaking on behalf of the Opposition. I am not on the AERA Committee, but I will make some brief remarks on the Bill, the principles of which we support. It is a detailed, long Bill. Committee members and the Committee Chair have clearly set it out that a Bill that has 30-plus clauses, as well as schedules, will need to be understood in detail. It creates new responsibilities or powers for councils. We specifically need to understand how precisely it will work and what support, if any, be it via guidance or financial support, the Executive will give councils to make that happen.

The Minister said that the Bill provides that, in issuing dilapidation notices, emergency action notices, dangerous structure notices and all the rest, a council may recover costs from the people who own the properties that have fallen into dereliction. Clearly, in some cases, they will be persons or entities in respect of whom, if they hold derelict assets, there might be significant difficulties in recovering costs because of the status of such assets. It will be helpful to understand how the Minister sees that playing out and how exactly it will work if there are logistical or legal challenges to a council in recovering costs.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for giving way. He has rightly identified the fact that the recovery of costs is often more easily said than done.

Does the Minister recognise a situation where so much of the public estate has fallen into disrepair and dilapidation, and does he envisage a situation where councils therefore pursue Departments or the Education Authority (EA), for example, for costs? Does the legislation lend itself to calling on those agencies — the EA in particular — to revise how they dispose of assets, rather than hanging on to them for so long that they become a liability for themselves and the local community?

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

First, I remind my colleague that I am not a Minister. That is the whole point.

Yes, he is right: there are such buildings in the public estate, one of which is the actual Minister's former departmental building, Dundonald House, just a short walk from here. I do not know whether it is formally dilapidated or derelict yet, but, if you go for a lunchtime run down there, you will see that it seems pretty close to that.

Dereliction and dilapidation are close to most of us, as local representatives, because we can see them, quite literally, on our streets and high streets. For people in both urban and rural communities, dilapidation is, in many ways, the physical manifestation of a sense that the community in which they live either is not getting enough support or is not what it should be and is not living up to its potential. It then has all sorts of other consequences for economic development that will be, I am sure, well aired in the debate. It can form a negative downward spiral by dissuading people from going to said high street for hospitality, retail or other community use. That then causes a negative downward spiral in the economic potential of an area. As Mr Butler, the Committee Chair, said, it can incentivise or at least facilitate certain types of antisocial behaviour. It can have a real impact if it provides for dangerous situations where there is, for example, significant antisocial behaviour or drug use. That can then facilitate all sorts of negative public health and antisocial consequences. It is an extraordinarily broad area.

I would welcome hearing more from the Minister about how he sees the Bill fitting into the broader work on dereliction. From listening to his remarks, it struck me that, when we think about the dereliction and dilapidation of high streets, although it does not exclusively affect high streets, we have specific challenges in areas where economic development is an issue. The Economy Department is, obviously, responsible for economic development. It convened the high street task force, which, sadly, is no more. The Finance Department is responsible for the rates system, which is a huge part of this, and I will talk about that in one second. The Infrastructure Department is responsible for the maintenance of highways. Sometimes dilapidated buildings create issues for highways and other street architecture, particularly if there is falling masonry. The Communities Department is responsible for the built environment and regeneration. There are multiple examples of where the Communities Department is responsible for regeneration projects and is, effectively, the development partner for properties that are either dilapidated or becoming dilapidated. It will need what we are, frankly, abysmal at in this place: genuine cross-departmental working.

The SDLP Opposition welcomes the Bill as a step forward. Scrutiny will be done in Committee to understand precisely how all the powers will work, how councils can apply them and what the consequences will be.

I would also welcome hearing from the Minister about how he sees the Bill feeding into what should be broader Executive work on supporting high streets and preventing dereliction and all the associated points. As I said, the Bill touches on a range of areas of responsibility, so there should really be joined-up working. The high street task force, were it still to exist, would have been the obvious place in which some of the issues could have been taken forward. The outworkings of the Dilapidation Bill would, I am sure, have been of interest to the task force.

I will give an example in the city that I represent. Mr Butler mentioned Hilden Mill in his constituency. Painting a picture for people who are watching the debate on the Bill will help them link it to places in their area. The Opposition brought a motion to the House about a chronic piece of facilitated dereliction and dilapidation in the middle of Belfast in Miss McAllister and Mr Brett's constituency. It is called Tribeca. It is in the heart of one of the most vibrant, economically and culturally rich parts of this city and this island. No one can say to me that Tribeca, if it theoretically had cultural hospitality and people living there, with all sorts of community opportunities, could not be a going concern. No one can say to me that it is not economically achievable. It is economically achievable, but the current owners have allowed a set of properties to fall into structured and supported dereliction and dilapidation.

I do not ask the Minister to speculate about that site, as that would not be proper. I have said, however, that Belfast City Council should have powers in such a situation. It has vesting powers, but the dilapidation powers in the Bill would better enable the council to step in aggressively and try to rescue all or part of that project. What has happened is indefensible. As you walk down North Street and Donegall Street, you see this amazing place, full of rich history, where the Belfast Enlightenment happened and where the Assembly Rooms are. All our political, cultural and intellectual traditions have a presence in that part of the city, yet we have allowed it to fall into structured dereliction.

Our rates system has incentivised that. The Bill is not about the rates system, but the two are inextricably linked. Bluntly, our rates system incentivises continued dereliction. We have vacant property relief, which is very generous. I want there to be some form of property tax relief that incentivises people who have vacant properties to find new uses for them, but our system seems to subsidise such properties indefinitely as they fall into dereliction. I will wait to hear whether the Minister has anything to say about that and to hear whether the Bill will help facilitate a broader piece of work being done. In our rates system, vacant property relief effectively exists until a place is ineligible to pay tax because it no longer has any obvious economic use and is dilapidated. Does the Minister think that that issue should be covered in the Dilapidation Bill?

I will give a couple of examples in my constituency. On Botanic Avenue, just around the corner from my constituency office, what used to be the Botanic Lodge guest house lies derelict. I have no idea why that is so, and I make no comment on the individuals who own it. Mr Speaker, you may draw me back to the specifics of the Bill, but I would like to see Belfast City Council and other councils look at properties like that and say, "Hang on. This building is right in the middle of a culturally and commercially critical part of our district. Why the hell has it been allowed to fall into structured and facilitated dereliction and dilapidation?". I hope that the Bill creates extra powers for councils.

Dereliction is happening not just on Botanic Avenue but in parts of what is called the Linen Quarter: inner South Belfast, Great Victoria Street and Shaftesbury Square. There is huge vibrancy there, as well as one of the world's great universities. People come from all over the world to study and socialise and to experience the area, but there is too much dereliction. It is a blight on our hospitality offer and on economic development more generally.

I hope that the Bill can be part of a broader effort to tackle and clamp down on dilapidation. My colleague on the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs will scrutinise it in detail. At this stage, however, we support the Dilapidation Bill.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for introducing the Bill and commend the Members who have spoken, including the Chair of the Committee, who accurately reflected the deliberations that we have had so far on the Bill.

Sinn Féin welcomes the intent of the Dilapidation Bill. Across our towns and villages, the impact of dereliction and neglected buildings is plain to see. Such structures often sit at the heart of our communities in main streets, close to schools and near local businesses, and they send out the wrong message. They harm community confidence, deter investment and, in some cases, pose real safety risks.

The Bill, rightly, seeks to strengthen enforcement and give local councils the powers that they need in order to act. That is a step in the right direction, and, whilst we support the Bill's moving to the next stage, we are cautious about some aspects of it. Many of our councils are already under significant financial pressure, and the new powers must come with appropriate funding. It would be unfair and, ultimately, unworkable to expect councils to take on any additional enforcement responsibilities without the means to do so.

Questions still need to be answered about the financial model behind the Bill. For example, how many properties are expected to fall under enforcement each year? What proportion will require significant structural work as opposed to basic maintenance? The estimated annual cost is £4 million, but how much of that will fall to councils, particularly in cases where the cost of works cannot be recovered? Those concerns are particularly relevant in rural areas, where the rate base is small and the resources to pursue enforcement, legal action and remedial works are already stretched.

We must also be mindful of the impact on small, independent businesses. Many operate on tight margins, and unexpected repair bills, particularly for older buildings, could threaten their survival. What flexibility will be offered when it comes to compliance? Will there be phased timelines, and will financial support or grants be available for those businesses that are genuinely unable to meet the cost? We have heard that the long-term uplift in property values will offset the costs, but can that assumption really be applied across all areas, especially where demand is low and depopulation is a concern?

We support the aim of creating safer, more vibrant built environments. That can happen only if those tasked with delivery of our council functions and those affected, including small businesses, which are the backbone of our local economy, are properly supported. We need a fair, realistic and sustainable approach.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

I was somewhat amused earlier when I heard the SDLP say that too much legislation is coming. One day, the SDLP says that there is not enough, and, the next day, it says that there is too much. You wonder what sort of Opposition you have. It reminds me of a bit of Ulster-Scots poetry that says:

"In no other country, the likes of this you'd see."

That is what we are seeing.

I will move on to the Bill. I welcome the Second Stage. We fully support the intent behind the Bill, which is to address the blight of dilapidated, defective and dangerous buildings in many of our towns and villages and the risks that those buildings pose to personal safety and the environment. At the last local government election, our manifesto pledged support for the creation of powers to enable local councils to tackle dilapidated buildings, and we renew that commitment today. However, we are conscious of the fact that the Bill needs careful scrutiny. While it needs to be robust, it needs careful drafting so that no extra pressure is put on councils. Of course, that needs to come with financial support, as others have said. We look forward to examining the Bill's details at Committee Stage and working in the Committee to agree final legislation that is operable and gives local councils the wherewithal and clarity that they need to take strides in addressing a problem whilst ensuring that property owners and tenants are afforded fairness and due process.

There can be no doubt that, leaving aside all the architecture of the powers set out in the Bill, much will depend on the content of the guidance envisaged in clause 20. That issue has already been raised during the debate. There can be no ambiguity around the thresholds of buildings that are deemed dilapidated, defective or dangerous. To protect the taxpayer, clear direction will be required for councils when they are taking emergency remedial action.

We would welcome further information from the Minister on the rationale, in clause 11, for giving the councils powers to intervene and start remedial work on defective premises within nine days of a notice being served. That seems like a fairly expedited time frame, and consideration needs to be given to whether that unduly infringes on the ability of the owner or occupant to engage constructively and in good faith with any notice that is issued. Moreover, is it not the case that, if a risk to health and safety is adjudged to necessitate intervention after such a period, the use of the powers in clause 10 might be more appropriate than those in clause 11?

I also ask the Minister to confirm whether he has explored the potential for a grant scheme to support, in limited circumstances, those individuals who find themselves in possession of dilapidated premises through inheritance or other circumstances, despite not having the financial means to take the remedial action that would otherwise be required in a council notice. Perhaps the Minister could elaborate on whether he has looked at such a scheme or whether he intends to do so. I would also like to hear in greater detail about the sorts of reasonable excuses that the Department envisages being appropriate where owners or occupiers fail to comply with conditions or notices that have been issued by councils. Again, there needs to be clarity on that.

We support the Bill. As the Committee Chair said, we want a Bill that is workable and makes a difference in our constituencies, including our rural towns and villages. We look forward to the opportunity to scrutinise the legislation at the Committee and to a positive Bill passing through the House that everyone can support.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

As Alliance AERA spokesperson, I express our support for the Dilapidation Bill at its Second Stage. As has already been indicated by others in the debate, this is a long-awaited and crucial piece of legislation that aims to empower district councils with the necessary tools to address the pressing issue of dilapidated and dangerous buildings throughout Northern Ireland. We all recognise the issues that are caused by neglected sites and deteriorating structures. I have been contacted by constituents who have expressed concerns about specific dilapidated buildings in South Antrim. I am sure that others in the Chamber have been contacted by their constituents with similar concerns. Those properties are not only eyesores; they decrease property values, pose health and safety risks and have a harmful impact on the wider environment and community. The strong public support for action is therefore understandable, and I am glad that the AERA Minister has responded by bringing the Bill to the House.

Many of our councils lack the powers or mechanisms that are necessary to effectively address the issues. The Bill grants them discretionary powers to take action on such buildings, bringing Northern Ireland in line with the rest of the United Kingdom. Moreover, the enhanced cost recovery powers will make it feasible for councils to undertake the necessary remediation work themselves when required. That is critical, as many property owners may be unwilling or unable to take action, which will leave the councils with no choice but to intervene. Having the means to recover those costs will not only support our councils financially but streamline the process of ensuring that our communities are safer and that their infrastructure is well maintained. Fundamentally, it is essential to recognise that local authorities are best positioned to understand the specific needs and circumstances of their communities. The Bill allows the flexibility to act in a manner that reflects those local priorities.

The Dilapidation Bill represents a significant step forward in addressing the challenges that are posed by neglected and dangerous buildings in our communities. It empowers local councils to take action, enhances their capacity to undertake remediation work and, ultimately, makes our communities more vibrant places in which to live and work. The Alliance Party supports the Bill and we urge others to do likewise.

Maolíosa McHugh (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Is geal linn cuspóir Bhille an Trochlaithe. Ní féidir neamhaird a thabhairt ar an drochthionchar a bhíonn ag foirgnimh chontúirteacha thréigthe ar na bailte móra, sráidbhailte agus cathracha againn. Tá sé thar am cur i bhfeidhm atá níos láidre agus níos comhsheasmhaí a fhorbairt.

Mar sin féin, cé go dtacaímid leis an Bhille, déanaimid sin go faichilleach, go háirithe maidir leis na himpleachtaí airgeadais. Tá go leor comhairlí faoi bhrú airgeadais cheana féin. Ní mór na hacmhainní cuí a bheith ag gabháil leis na cumhachtaí nua.

Tá soiléireacht de dhíth orainn i dtaca leis an tsamhail airgeadais atá mar bhonn faoin Bhille. Níor cheart bheith ag tabhairt ar na comhairlí dul i mbun oibreacha deisiúcháin riachtanacha gan meicníocht praiticiúil ann leis na costais a thabhairt isteach. Tá baol ann go mbeidh crannchur de réir cód poist ann maidir le feidhmiú, ag brath ar acmhainn airgeadais na comhairle.

Ní mór dúinn an tionchar ar ghnólachtaí beaga agus leochaileacha a mheas. Cén raon costais athchóirithe atá i gceist, ní hamháin an meánchostas £7,300 punt ach an t-íosmhéid agus an t-uasmhéid fosta? Cén dóigh a n-athróidh na costais sin de réir chineál an ghnó, de réir mhéid agus riocht na maoine nó de réir shuíomh an ghnó? An mbeidh ar ghnólachtaí na costais iomlána a íoc láithreach, nó an mbeidh deis ann comhlíonadh a chéimniú thar thréimhse réasúnta ama? An dtig údar a chur leis an mhaíomh go dtabharfar isteach na costais le méaduithe fadtéarmacha i luach maoine go háirithe i gceantair thuaithe nó i gceantair dhíothacha? Mar bhuille scoir, cén cúnamh airgid a bheidh ar fáil le tacú le gnólachtaí neamhspleácha áitiúla a n-oibleagáidí a chomhlíonadh? Caithfidh tacaíocht bheith mar chuid den réiteach.

Más é an cuspóir an timpeallacht thógtha a fheabhsú agus leas an phobail a chosaint, caithfear cosaint a thabhairt dóibh siúd atá freagrach as an athrú sin a chur i gcrích fosta— ár gcomhairlí — agus dóibh siúd a mbeidh tionchar aige orthu — ár ngnólachtaí áitiúla. Tacaímid le dul chun cinn an Bhille, ach déanaimid amhlaidh go faichilleach agus le glao soiléir ar chur i bhfeidhm a bheidh cothrom, inmharthana agus maoinithe mar is ceart.

[Translation: We welcome the intent behind the Dilapidation Bill. The impact of dangerous and neglected buildings on our towns, villages and city centres is clear, and stronger, more consistent enforcement is long overdue. However, our support for the Bill’s proceeding is cautious, especially given the financial implications. Councils, many of which are already under significant strain, must not be left to enforce new powers without the necessary funding. New responsibilities must be matched with resources. We need clarity on the Bill’s financial modelling. Councils should not be forced to carry out essential works without a practical way of recovering costs. Otherwise, we risk a postcode lottery of enforcement, where only the best-resourced councils can act. We must also consider the impact on small and marginal businesses. What is the full range of remediation costs not just the £7,300 average but minimums and maximums? Will costs vary by business type, property condition or location? Will businesses be expected to pay up front, or can compliance be phased over time? How robust is the claim that long-term increases in property values will offset costs, particularly in rural or struggling areas? Finally, what support will be available to help local independent businesses meet their obligations? Incentives and assistance must be part of the solution. If the goal is to improve our built environment and protect community well-being, we must also protect those that are tasked with delivering this change — our councils — and those that are impacted on by it — our local businesses. We support the Bill’s progress, but we have serious concerns and a clear call for a fair, sustainable and properly funded implementation.]

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I warmly welcome the Second Stage of the Bill. I am not a member of the Agriculture Committee, and I do not represent a rural constituency, but, given the speeches that have been made today, it is clear that, for those of us who represent inner-city constituencies, the purpose of the Bill is very welcome indeed. As other Members articulated, the Bill and its genesis have been floating around in the ether since 2012, and communities that I represent have been warmly welcoming them.

Mr Butler articulated the fact that the Ulster Unionist Party has been discussing the matter for 53 years, so I am sure that Alliance election material will say, "People talk about it for 53 years, and Alliance delivers it within 18 months."

[Laughter.]

I really welcome the Bill. I welcome it so much because it will ensure that the communities that I represent that live in BT15, BT14, BT36 and BT37 get the same treatment as those who live in BT9. The dilapidated conditions that some people whom I represent are expected to put up with and live beside would not be accepted in BT9. They would not be accepted on the Malone Road or in other parts of Northern Ireland, but working-class communities are expected to suck them up. I see one of the other Members for North Belfast in the Chamber today and I am sure that she could add many more examples. I have seen people living beside derelict properties for year after year and people who have spent their life savings purchasing their home only to be surrounded by derelict properties with no future option of selling their home. As the Member for South Belfast articulated, that obviously impacts on our town centres as well.

I welcomed the purpose of the Bill, in particular because it will bring a uniform approach across council areas. Like many representatives in the Chamber today, my constituency overlaps with two local government areas. The approach taken by Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council is much more proactive than that taken by Belfast City Council. On occasions, residents who live on the border of those local government areas can look across the road or across the bridge and see their council taking action and wonder why other local authorities are not doing so. However, I was slightly concerned when the Minister went on to articulate that those are discretionary powers for councils and not mandatory, legislative steps that councils should take. I ask the Minister to articulate why he is not passing on a legal duty to councils to ensure that they live up to their responsibilities.

I will also pick up on something in relation to clause 24. The Bill mentions derelict properties, but I want to know whether it touches, in particular, on unregistered land. There are swathes of land in my constituency that have no owner. It has Japanese knotweed growing on it that is impacting on residential homes. However, the Bill seems to articulate that the interpretation of the Act can apply only if someone has a registered person on that land. I have concerns that perhaps the Bill could be seen as something that could help to tackle unregistered land and unregistered sites. Perhaps the Minister could give some clarity in relation to clause 24's "interested persons". In addition, clause 10 does not mention land; it mentions only buildings. Can the Minister articulate whether that covers land and buildings?

On cost recovery, the Bill articulates that councils "may" recover costs. I wonder why that is not "should" recover costs. We obviously appreciate that there may be some aspects that cannot be recovered due to not being able to trace ownership or due to people not having the means, but we could use the word "should" rather than "may". Maybe the Minister could sum up on that.

Regarding time for compliance with notices that have been served on property or landowners, could the Minister articulate what time pressures will be available to people to put in action what they need to do? We do not want to have notices that will last for months and months with people simply using delaying tactics.

Overall, the Bill is welcome. It will allow safety to be returned to many parts of our constituency where derelict sites or land are used for antisocial behaviour. Regeneration that has been led by government can continue to take place, and those who have land-banked their sites for many years will now have to face the repercussions of doing so. It will also protect our built heritage. Across North Belfast, we have some amazing built heritage. We have seen regeneration projects such as Crumlin Road Gaol, which has been truly wonderful, but you then look across the street and see Crumlin Road Courthouse, a listed and wonderful building in the heart of our city that, due to legislation, has been allowed to fall into absolute disrepair.

The Bill touches on many of the things that all Members want to see: it protects our built heritage, ensures community safety and puts regeneration back at the heart of our working-class communities. The Minister has my full support, for whatever that is worth, in progressing the Bill, and I look forward to his answering some of the issues that I have raised today.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

I welcome the Bill at its Second Stage. I am grateful that my party colleague, Alliance Minister Muir, introduced it.

I remember that, back in 2012 or 2013, when I was an activist in the Alliance Party, my first piece of activism was to write a letter to the then Minister Durkan — I think that it must have been 2013 — asking him to take action on derelict buildings in north Belfast. It did not happen then, but it is happening now, and I am glad that we are moving forward on it, finally. It is frustrating that progress has taken so long.

I echo the comments about the issues in constituencies that cover two council boundaries. In my constituency of North Belfast, if you journey from outer Newtownabbey into Belfast city centre, taking any of the many different routes that you can, you see the dereliction get worse the further you go into the city. Take the Shore Road, for example. I look back to how long the old Grove site was left unused and the number of buildings that were left when businesses went bust. My constituency colleague has already mentioned the Crumlin Road Courthouse, but there are many more derelict properties along the Crumlin Road. There are issues on the Cliftonville Road as well. Thankfully, some organisations are taking it on themselves to do some of the work. I think about Cliftonville Community Regeneration Forum, which developed its own local manifesto on tackling derelict buildings. It put pictures of many of the houses in the area in brochures, which shamed landlords in the area into scrubbing up a lot of the houses by going in, taking on repairs and doing the work. Most of the houses that the community organisation highlighted are now in use.

I think about the Antrim Road from Glengormley right down to where it reaches Carlisle Circus and North Street in Belfast city centre. I think of one dangerous structure in particular. One of the buildings collapsed during the day, and emergency services had to be called to the scene. It had collapsed on to the road and into the street. Two businesses — one that was a pillar of the north Belfast community for decades — were shut for a number of months. My kids were mostly disappointed by the fact that our local Chinese had closed down, but thankfully it has relocated, so they are happy now. On a more serious note, we are talking about businesses that were affected because other landlords did not take seriously their obligations to maintain their properties. I have taken the Minister to my constituency of North Belfast and shown him some of those sites. At the time, he agreed that it was a disgrace and that action should be taken. A Member mentioned the Tribeca site and North Street, another area that we need to work together on to ensure that the dereliction is tackled.

A number of Members have raised the issues of cost recovery and cost to local councils. I do not know about other MLAs, but I am sure that they could relate to the number of times that my constituency office and I have contacted Belfast City Council or Antrim and Newtownabbey Borough Council to get an environmental health team out to the sites of derelict buildings and derelict houses to take action. They are wasting money doing that when it could be the landlords taking action. Councils could save money. Imagine if we devolved regeneration powers to councils along with the powers that the Bill will transfer to them: that really could regenerate areas and make them vibrant. I look forward to the statutory guidance. I am not a member of the Committee, but, working with my colleague, I will keep a close eye on it, because it could transform my local area and the local areas of everyone across Northern Ireland.

We are in a housing crisis across Northern Ireland. How many houses in disrepair that landlords have let get into a sorry state could be used to house people? There are many. Hopefully, this power will allow councils to take enforcement action against landlords. I am sure that there will be many more discussions on the Bill in Committee, which I will not be part of, but one thing that, I hope, is dealt with is the effect on councils across Northern Ireland and how they will use the powers. I look forward to working with my colleague to ensure that. Remember that each of us has party colleagues who sit on the councils, so we can ensure that councils use the powers. The Minister is giving the gift to councils, and then it will be in our gift and that of our party colleagues who sit on those councils to enforce it and use the powers.

I look forward to getting to the Final Stage of the Bill. I very much welcome it.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

My party supports the broad aims of the Bill. I thank the Minister for bringing it to the House. It is important that councils have more powers to tackle dilapidated and neglected buildings and to ensure that those buildings are utilised for the public good. I welcome the provisions that give powers to councils to give notice to owners and occupiers to fix problems within a time frame. The mind really boggles as to why that is not the law already. Do the Minister and his officials have any indication of how many buildings would be affected each year? Obviously, it could fluctuate on the basis of buildings deteriorating and so on, but I presume that there is a working figure. I would appreciate a number on that.

Clause 19 mentions the issuing of a fixed penalty of £500 on owner-occupiers if they breach a maintenance notice issued by the council. I am concerned that that is a paltry sum that developers and building owners could effectively brush off. It is only £500, which is very small. The Minister mentioned other figures in the thousands: will he clarify what they are? The only figure mentioned in the Bill is £500, which, I repeat, is too small for building owners — in some cases developers, in others individuals. Compare that with the way in which somebody who allegedly claims welfare that they should not be claiming or for which they are ineligible is treated. Their faces are plastered all over websites and media outlets, but the owners of buildings are treated with kid gloves. This is an improvement, but the legislation is not strong enough. I urge the Minister to make it more robust, and I ask him to clarify, in his closing remarks, why the fine is only £500.

Members have talked about the look of cities and towns. That is not unimportant, but the main focus should be on the fact that there are empty buildings while, as the Member for North Belfast said, tens of thousands of households across the North are homeless — staying in hostels, Airbnbs and hotels or sleeping on sofas or in cars and so on. We have empty buildings while organisations including but not limited to art organisations could avail themselves of them. I have met Vault, an important arts organisation in Belfast city centre. Every nine or so months, it moves round Belfast to locate empty buildings so that it can put up hundreds of artists to allow them to do their work and create art in cultural spaces in Belfast city centre and beyond. There are departmental buildings and private buildings lying empty.

I am concerned that the £500 fine for owners of properties is just a slap on the wrist. The Minister should consider a multiple-strike policy, if he has not done so already. If a property owner repeatedly ignores or breaches a maintenance notice, there should be repercussions — something along the lines of a three-strike policy or a two-strike policy. The Minister should consider a transfer of buildings. If someone repeatedly breaches the maintenance notice, there should be a question about whether they should be able to own that property or whether it should go into public ownership with the Housing Executive, the Department of Finance, DAERA or whomever. Have the Minister or his officials considered that?

The Bill also talks about low-level dilapidation but does not clarify what that is. There is a concern about that. As a quick segue, there is a concern about public buildings lying empty, as mentioned by the Member for Foyle. I am also concerned that government-owned buildings are being sold off for private gain. We had a Finance Committee discussion a few months ago about a Civil Service-owned building being sold to a private healthcare company. The Minister is making good strides. They are, maybe, not strong enough, but we cannot have this Minister doing one thing when the Finance Minister is taking a different approach and allowing public buildings to be sold off for private gain.

I am not convinced of the effectiveness of the £500 fine, as I mentioned, when there are more than 5,000 properties across the North whose owners are availing themselves of 100% rates relief. Empty commercial properties qualify for, I think, a 50% rates reduction. People could soak up multiple yearly £500 fines for breaching maintenance notices issued by councils, whilst thousands of pounds, if not tens of thousands of pounds, are unpaid in rates. The £500 fine is a good start — I welcome the principle — but it is not strong enough. I ask the Minister why he came up with that amount.

Finally, housing is a key issue that is faced by Members across the North.

Could a percentage, or all, of the buildings that are not being used and that may be in need of repair be transferred and used for housing? At least 22,000 homes are lying empty, and the figure could be greater. I would therefore appreciate it if the Minister were to clarify those points.

John Stewart (UUP, East Antrim)

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, for coming in late. It had not been my intention to speak at this stage, but I take the opportunity to praise the Minister and his officials for introducing the Bill. I agree with much of what has been said today. The Bill is long overdue. A lot of work has gone into getting it to this stage, and I look forward to its progressing through the various legislative stages and to seeing the final Bill. The legislation will have a very positive impact on our communities.

I was previously a councillor in Carrickfergus and am now an MLA. In all that time, nothing has frustrated me more than seeing constant dereliction, especially in Carrickfergus, where I am proud to have lived for many years and which I am proud to represent. It is a historic town, but it is blighted by dereliction, often because of landlords who are repeat offenders. They own multiple properties in the area but are never held to account for not repairing them. In fact, we see the opposite, with grant schemes being targeted at them to help them do up those buildings. It has been very frustrating over many years to contact the council and feel that nothing can be done. One has only to arrive in our fantastic town and visit our world-famous medieval castle to see that that impressive structure sits beside an abandoned bar and restaurant complex that is being allowed to fall into the sea. Nothing is being done about that. I therefore hope that the Bill will allow us to take action in that regard. I know that some amendments will be tabled to it.

I agree with what the Member who spoke previously said about the fixed penalty notice in clause 19. Financial developers who are buying up properties for their housing portfolios should experience the wrath of God, money-wise, but a £500 fine is nothing to them. Given the red tape involved, it will probably cost more to administer that fine. Where there are repeat offenders, I agree with the Member for West Belfast that something more than a tap on the wrist must be administered. Multiple landlords are involved, and they are often repeat offenders. Something a bit stronger should therefore be considered.

I am interested to hear whether the Minister and his officials have looked at examples of where such legislation is operating already in the rest of these islands, particularly on the Isle of Man, where it has worked really successfully. How has other legislation evolved, and what is the experience of local councils of enforcement, the appeals process and everything else? We know that no plans survive contact and that things evolve. One of the benefits of being late to the party in introducing such legislation is that we can learn from elsewhere about what has worked well and what has not and then amend our legislation accordingly. I know that the Committee, including my party colleague the Member for Lagan Valley, will be doing that.

I also agree with the analysis of Mr Brett and that of the other Member for North Belfast. Mention was made of there being a postcode lottery where a constituency straddles two council areas. I find that particularly frustrating as well. Depending on which side of the road they live on, people do not really know how the relevant council will interpret the provisions. The key to the legislation's success is that it must compel councils to take action. It is all well and good for us to create law, but councils must be willing and able to use it and to put down markers. There are already powers available to them, but there has been a reluctance from some councils, depending on where one is in the country, to use them. The Bill presents an opportunity for us to do something about that.

I look forward to following the Bill's Committee Stage. Hopefully, some amendments to the Bill will be tabled.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I am grateful to everyone in the Chamber who contributed to the debate. It is what the Assembly is about: scrutinising and passing legislation. I will seek to respond to the points that were made. A variety of issues were raised, and I will try my best to deal with them. At the outset, I declare that I am a member of the Ulster Architectural Heritage Society. It is important that I put that on the record.

The Chair of the Committee mentioned having sight of the guidance. That is currently being pulled together. It is important that the Committee has sight of the guidance during its scrutiny of the Bill. The desire is that it will be with the Committee at the end of September. We have to engage with the councils on the matter, because they play a key role. Hopefully, the Committee will have the guidance at the end of September to allow for scrutiny of the Bill, because that is a key part of the legislation.

I get the concern about financial support for councils. That issue was raised a number of times during the debate, and it is important that I address it. The inclusion of robust and effective cost recovery provisions will reduce the likelihood of councils being disadvantaged financially. The effective implementation of the new regime will require council buy-in to undertake enforcement activity, and it is recognised that councils will need to allocate adequate resources because, in the current budgetary climate, no discrete funding provisions are included in the Bill. New powers are discretionary, giving councils the flexibility to avail themselves of them as their resources permit. I acknowledge the thread of debate about the discretionary power and whether it should be mandatory, and the Committee can scrutinise that in the time ahead. I have a strong desire to work in partnership with district councils on the matter. There is a role for us all, because we have representatives on the district councils, and we can influence them to take forward the powers in the Bill. Obviously, the balance between discretionary and mandatory powers can be considered.

Funding support has been given to councils for the wider area of regeneration. I could go through that, but most Members are aware of it. Members are also aware of their current powers, such as those relating to developer contributions, but the Bill deals specifically with dilapidation and gives councils up-to-date powers. There needs to be a wider understanding of the impact of dilapidation on areas, because not taking action has wider consequences for the people living in an area, those considering investing in an area or, as has been discussed, businesses leaving an area because of it.

The Chair of the Committee asked what success would look like. For me, success is when dilapidation is not seen as the norm. There are different attitudes in central and local government towards dilapidation. When it starts to develop, we need to go in quickly and take action. The leader of the Opposition, who is not here at present, mentioned the Tribeca site and the wider issues in north Belfast. The Bill is designed to deal with the dilapidation issues that affect constituencies across Northern Ireland, and, as has been articulated in the Chamber, there are particular issues in north Belfast. To be fair, Members who represent the North Belfast constituency have raised a number of those issues with me, and I will offer to meet the five MLAs from that area to go through the sites and see what more can be coordinated across government. The issue has been raised consistently, and the MLAs have engaged constructively with the Bill. We need to find a way forward, and that is the best way to address the issues.

The Chair of the Committee asked why the powers are discretionary and not mandatory. Hopefully, I have addressed that issue. The leader of the Opposition talked about cost recovery, and that is an important issue.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Minister give way?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Yes.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I am not sure whether the intervention is appropriate, because you have just raised the cost issue. Something that happens in towns at times — I am sure that most people have experienced it — is that the ownership of a building lapses because someone dies, and there is no will or probate to pick it up. Has the Minister considered how the ownership of those buildings will be addressed?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Tracing the owner of a building and taking action is a fundamental issue that the Bill seeks to address. The Committee can drill into the specifics through its scrutiny of the Bill and as part of the call for evidence over the summer. Hopefully, the councils will be helpful and highlight where they see the challenges. Fundamentally, we want to minimise the cost to the taxpayer in Northern Ireland and make sure that it is borne by the people who are causing the dereliction and dilapidation. Clause 12 provides that, in court proceedings to recover costs:

"the court may consider whether a person other than the defendant ought to be liable for the whole or part of the costs; and the court may"

make an order accordingly. As is the case with serving a notice under the Bill, the Department is keen to ensure that the range of persons from whom costs may be recovered is broad. Before deciding to recover costs for a particular person, it would be in order for a council to satisfy itself that it is appropriate to pursue that person for the costs. I understand that councils need to have discretion on that.

The provision of robust and effective measures to ensure that the appropriate person or organisation pays for the necessary remedial actions is key to minimising the cost to the public purse and to preventing unscrupulous property owners from deriving financial benefit from allowing buildings to fall into disrepair. All of us in the Chamber know of examples of that: such behaviour is not right, and we need to find a way to deal with it. Hopefully, the legislation will help with that. Under the current draft of the Bill, a council would have to judge, on a case-by-case basis, whether to begin enforcement proceedings if the likelihood of recovering costs is minimal. It is reasonable to assume that a council would adopt an approach that did not put its finances at risk and ensured maximisation of success in the interests of ratepayers.

Another point is whether the ability to trace an owner would inhibit councils from carrying out their work. That should not prevent councils from carrying out works. Owners or other persons of interest should be actively pursued in an effort to improve and regenerate their areas using a variety of methods, such as the services of Land and Property Services or Companies House, internet searches, private investigators — if doing so is deemed to be ethically appropriate — and the information notices provided for in clause 16. There are, therefore, a number of ways to move on that. Fundamentally, that is about us working in cooperation with district councils.

In an intervention, Mark H Durkan raised the role of public bodies. We all have a responsibility to keep our public estate at the proper standards. There is engagement on that, as appropriate, on a case-by-case basis. If you need to use legislation such as this against a public body, government has failed in that instance. That is, however, something to be considered.

The leader of the Opposition asked how the Bill fits with the broader issue of dereliction. The Bill interfaces with a variety of areas in other Departments, and my officials have primarily been in close contact on it with the officials from the Department for Communities.

I have already touched on the issue of Tribeca. That is a good example of a case in which councils want more effective powers. Hopefully, the Bill will give them that and allow Belfast City Council to use the appropriate powers to take things forward in that case.

The other issue that the leader of the Opposition raised was on the role of the rating system. That is a matter for the Minister of Finance, but it has been a thread throughout the debate. I will write to the Finance Minister to reflect those points back to him, because, ultimately, we need to coordinate everything that we are doing across government.

An issue that was raised by Declan McAleer and Tom Buchanan was that of councils' financial powers and the cost that they will bear. I understand that point totally, and it is important that the guidance is issued for the Committee to scrutinise it at the end of September. That would allow councils to fully consider how they will go forward with this. The Bill is deliberately set out in such a way that the owners of the buildings are the ones who take the liabilities that are associated with it. Ultimately, if councils want to protect and grow their rates base, it is in their interests for those areas to be regenerated and for dilapidation to not be allowed to occur in the first place. A wider perspective has to be drawn.

Tom also raised a point about the defective premises notice and whether the nine-day period set out in clause 11 is too tight. I want to make sure that I give you the correct answer. Clause 11 is on the defective premises notice. That notice would be used on occasions when there would not be time to go down the route of statutory nuisance, provided for in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011, to remedy defects. That power would be used in circumstances that require relatively rapid remediation, such as in the case of a building in which a staircase had been incorrectly installed. In such a case, there would be insufficient time for a preliminary view and a subsequent, more considered, view to be taken.

The council may serve a notice stating that it intends to remedy the defective state of the premises and specifying the defects that it intends to remedy. The notice is served on the owner if the defective state of the premises arises from a structural defect and, in other cases, on the person responsible for the premises being in a defective state or, if that person cannot be found, the owner or occupier. Nine days after the notice takes effect, a council may carry out whatever remedial works are necessary. The building does not have to be dilapidated or dangerous but present a problem that, the council considers, needs to be tackled quickly, hence the nine-day turnaround time in the absence of appeal procedures.

Clause 11 also allows the person on whom the notice was served to serve, within seven days of the defective premises notice having taken effect, a counter-notice that states that they intend to remedy the defect themselves. If they did that, that would be good news. In such a case, the council is prohibited from taking any action unless the person fails to remedy the defects within a specified time or to a specified standard. That is not a new power — it is available to councils under article 65 of the Pollution Control and Local Government Order 1978 — but it is being re-enacted and enhanced to cover listed buildings. It should be noted that clause 11 does not conflict with Department for Communities defective premises legislation, which relates to liability and limitation periods. I hope that I have provided clarification on that.

Mr Buchanan also asked whether there were any plans to introduce grant schemes. There are no immediate plans for grant schemes as part of the Bill, but Members can consider that during the scrutiny period. The Bill is deliberately designed to minimise costs to the public purse and to ensure that costs rest with the people who are responsible for dilapidated buildings. That is the right balance to strike.

Maolíosa McHugh also raised council liabilities, which, I hope, I have addressed. Another point that Maolíosa raised was whether compliance could be phased in over time. The council can specify the periods in which work needs to be done. That allows councils to look at work on a case-by-case basis and to take a pragmatic approach.

Phillip Brett has been a passionate, strong and diligent supporter of the Bill. On the basis of his initial comments, he could probably be hired as director of campaigns for my party, but we will let him decide on that role.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Do not get ahead of yourself, Minister.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

He asked why the powers were discretionary rather than mandatory: I hope that I have addressed that. I know that that will be brought out by the Committee. It is about striking a balance between the power that we give to councils and our influence, as political parties, on those councils.

The Member also raised dealing with unregistered land, which, I know, is a cause of dilapidation. The council can carry out remedial work, or it can register a charge. It will be for the council to make a judgement on that, but I get the point that, in the areas of dilapidation that we have seen in Northern Ireland, unregistered land is a cause of concern for local people.

The Member raised a point on the meaning of "interested person" in clause 24. Clause 24 specifies that a person:

"has an interest in a building or other land if that person— (a) is the owner of the land, (b) is an occupier of the land, (c) has a charge over the land or another financial interest in it, or (d) has a responsibility for the management or maintenance of the land."

It also defines "owner" in relation to land. Hopefully, the Member is satisfied about that point.

On the period within which work should take place, I have tried to strike a balance by saying that councils can phase that in, but it is ultimately for councils to decide.

The Member also raised a relevant issue on Crumlin Road Courthouse — I have declared an interest as a member of the Ulster Architectural Heritage Society — and I am glad that he did so. The courthouse is a key piece of Northern Ireland and North Belfast's history. As someone whose family is from North Belfast, I value it, and its restoration would undoubtedly regenerate the surrounding area.

We have sought to ensure that the Bill affords protections to respect the heritage of buildings. Clause 17 binds councils to consult relevant planning colleagues in the Department for Communities about historic monuments before taking action. That will properly address heritage issues and is more proactive, allowing action to be taken at a much earlier stage, thereby preventing avoidable decay in important buildings. Councils have powers under section 161 of the Planning Act 2011 to carry out urgent remedial works for the preservation of listed buildings, but I get the point that the powers that are in place are not seen to be sufficient, which is why we are moving that forward.

I will continue through the issues, because it is important that I respond to them. My colleague Nuala McAllister spoke about a range of concerns in North Belfast. Hopefully, I have addressed that by expressing my desire to meet the MLAs for North Belfast to consider what more can be done to address those issues by my Department and by working collaboratively with others, including the Department for Communities. We need to address those issues, and it is important that all constituencies in Northern Ireland are assured that the Bill seeks to provide powers to do that. Nuala has been a good person in showing me around North Belfast and the need for the Bill. I am happy that we are able to bring it through its Second Stage today.

Gerry Carroll wanted to know whether there is an indication of how many buildings are likely to be affected by the Bill. Unfortunately, there is no indication at the moment. I will double-check with officials, and, if there is information, I will write to the Member, but I do not believe that there is an inventory of buildings currently.

The Member raised issues about the £500 fixed penalty and expressed the view that the penalty was too low. That came out in other Members' contributions. I will give you a proper response to that point, because I want to ensure that it is properly dealt with. Clause 19 provides for a:

"a discretionary £500 fixed penalty to be issued by councils to discharge liability for conviction for breach of a maintenance notice and for failure to provide information without reasonable excuse"

under section 16. Once the fixed penalty has been paid, no prosecution may be brought for that offence. Fixed penalties will not be available for more serious offences. The Department may amend the fixed penalty amount by regulations. Schedule 1 makes further provision regarding the form and content of fixed penalty notices and receipts. I look forward to hearing the contributions during the Committee's scrutiny on that. There is, obviously, the opportunity for amendments on that issue to be tabled at Consideration Stage, but I get your concerns.

The other issue was the definition of low-level dilapidation that we provided. We will consider the statutory guidance that is associated with the definition. If that is not forthcoming or you do not feel that it satisfies you, we can give further consideration to that.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I thank the Minister for giving way. I appreciate those answers.

Minister, your North Belfast colleague raised the point about housing, and I refer to compulsory purchase orders (CPOs) as well. Is there any specific intention to reuse buildings for housing as part of the Bill, or is that more of a matter for DFC? Have you addressed that or looked at it?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

No problem, Gerry. That issue, which relates to housing and CPOs, is not considered to be the primary effect of the Bill. I get the fact that dilapidated buildings cause issues for the wider neighbourhood, because people then move out or do not want to buy the properties. That will be where the benefits can arise. As part of the Committee's scrutiny function, it may also want to consider how that would interact with the wider desire to ensure that we have quality housing for citizens in Northern Ireland and how those things interrelate.

Gerry raised the issue of selling public buildings to the private sector. That is not really my gig, to be honest, but fair play to you. The other issue was about rates relief. I will write to the Finance Minister about that.

John Stewart raised a number of issues, particularly about Carrickfergus. His council colleague Lauren Gray has also raised those issues with me. I am assured that there are strong and powerful advocates for Carrickfergus. I get the feeling that there is a sense that, sometimes, nothing can be done. There is a sense of fatalism around the issue. Stewart Dickson showed me some of the buildings in Carrick, and I get that. Hopefully, the Bill will give us the power to address those issues. John Stewart raised the £500 fine. I hope that I have addressed that point in my response to Mr Carroll. He asked about how similar provisions operate elsewhere, particularly in the Isle of Man. I will ask officials to get me advice on that, and I will write to you about it.

John Stewart (UUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for giving way. I want to come back to the point that you raised about why councils do not compel people and why the options are there. It is not that I am being critical of councils, because great work is done up and down the country. The Minister will know, as I do, that, in some areas where the powers exist to punish those who engage in illegal dumping or dog fouling, some councils are very proactive in taking people to task and to court and others are quite risk-averse when it comes to that. That is borne out in the statistics. Does the Minister agree that we might have to see a few high-level test cases so that council officers are confident that it can be done and so that we scare people into realising that we are not messing about with the legislation and will go after those who are responsible for such things?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I agree. The legislation will have teeth, and we need to make sure that the councils apply it so that there is a deterrent effect when it comes to people allowing buildings to get into a dilapidated state. There is localism in Northern Ireland, in that district councils can decide what way they are going forward on the issue. For example, two councils have not signed up to the fly-tipping protocol in Northern Ireland. I have written to those councils to ask them to sign up to that, but we all need to work together on it. People can shape local solutions to the issues. Ultimately, if we pass the legislation, as, I hope, we will, which will be a good moment for the Assembly, it will be for district councils to show that they will use the powers to provide a deterrent and not allow those things to happen.

We are all proud to be public representatives. We stand for election to serve the people, and it is really gut-wrenching to see certain parts of our villages, towns and cities allowed to slide into decay. We want areas that we were once proud of not to be like that, and, hopefully, the legislation will provide the power to turn the situation around. It has been a long time coming, but it is here now. If the Bill passes Second Stage, I will seek, as will officials, to work with the Committee at the Committee Stage of scrutiny on any concerns that it has. My commitment to dealing with dilapidation in local neighbourhoods and to working with other Departments is significant.

I have heard particular concerns, and I want to take those forward. I will have those discussions with you, John, about the specific issues that you raised about Carrickfergus. Hopefully, we can move forward constructively.

This is what the Assembly is about. Legislation is the meat of the Assembly, and I am glad that we are moving forward with it.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That the Second Stage of the Dilapidation Bill [NIA Bill 21/22-27] be agreed.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

That concludes the Second Stage of the Dilapidation Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.

Members, please take your ease for a short moment before we move on to the next item of business.

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

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Insolvency (Amendment) Bill [NIA Bill 20/22-27] be agreed.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated a time limit to the debate. I call the Minister for the Economy to open the debate on the Bill.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.]

Members will be aware that I and my Department are working towards an economic vision aimed at creating good jobs, increasing productivity and promoting regional balance and decarbonisation. While perhaps not as high profile as those areas, our insolvency system remains fundamental to the operation of a healthy, stable and fair economy.

Whilst our economic performance is positive and has been improving over recent years, companies can still fail for a variety of reasons. As well as shifting markets and unexpected global crises, local businesses face challenges in trying to operate profitably. During my time as Finance Minister, my Department commissioned the Ulster University's Economic Policy Centre to carry out a study on the cost of doing business for local companies. That report illustrates the financial challenges that face all businesses here, particularly those associated with recent increases in National Insurance contributions and the rise in the national minimum wage. In addition and as I highlighted recently at the Energy Ireland conference, stubbornly high energy costs cause significant challenges for households and businesses. Those factors, along with the rising costs of other essentials such as raw materials, transport and insurance, are having a negative impact on the bottom line of many local businesses. Therefore, when companies or individuals encounter financial difficulties, how we respond has significant implications not just for those directly involved but for the economy as a whole.

A well-functioning insolvency system helps to preserve value, reduces uncertainty and allows capital and talent to be reallocated efficiently.

It is a silent but vital enabler of confidence in investment, lending and entrepreneurship. For employees, it offers clarity, legal protections and access to compensation; for creditors, it ensures fair treatment; and for the economy, it promotes dynamism and resilience.

My Department's insolvency framework is not static. It evolves in response to new challenges, and it balances the competing interests of creditors, debtors, employees and wider society. Our legislation requires regular updating if it is to remain relevant and continue to serve its purpose efficiently. That has been illustrated over the years with the focus of corporate insolvency legislation now aimed at the rescue and restructuring of failing businesses where possible rather than liquidation. Similarly, for individuals in financial distress, bankruptcy law has moved away from the punishment and stigma of previous times. It is now aimed at relief and rehabilitation so that individuals can rid themselves of problem debt and move forward with their lives.

The contents of the Bill represent a further evolution of our insolvency system. It does not make major changes to legislation, nor does it introduce radical new provisions. However, its provisions will have a practical impact on our insolvency laws, modernising them and making them more efficient, removing procedures that have become redundant or outdated, and easing the burden for creditors and petitioners.

Given the breadth and diversity of the proposed amendments — there are 29 in all — it would be impractical to provide a succinct and detailed summary of them. However, I will give a brief outline of a few of the most significant measures in the Bill. When a business falls into financial distress, often the best outcome for everyone, especially creditors and employees, is to keep that business running. However, businesses cannot keep operating if essential supplies such as gas, electricity or water are cut off. That is why the Bill gives my Department new powers to ensure that suppliers of essential services must continue to provide them during insolvency proceedings. We are updating the definition of "essential services" for modern times. The Bill will therefore guarantee that IT services are protected so that businesses can keep their digital services running while efforts to restructure or rescue them continue.

Another goal of the Bill is to put creditors at the heart of the process and make it easier for them to have their say. At present, all meetings of creditors must be held in person. That often makes it difficult for them to take part, especially if they live in remote areas or outside this jurisdiction. The Bill will allow creditors' meetings to be held online so that they can participate in the decision-making process from wherever they are. In addition, insolvency practitioners will not need to hire venues for meetings, thereby saving time and money for everyone involved.

We are cutting through unnecessary red tape. Currently, all creditors, no matter how small their claim, must submit a proof-of-debt form for their debt to be considered for payment. That can be an obstacle, particularly for those who are owed small amounts. The Bill will introduce a more practical solution: creditors who are owed smaller sums will be eligible for payment automatically without needing to file a claim. That small but significant change will make the process quicker, simpler and more accessible.

We are giving insolvency practitioners greater flexibility. Sometimes, there is a valid reason to take legal action to recover money for the company. However, the risk of losing and facing high legal costs can be a deterrent. Under the new rules, administrators and liquidators will be able to assign the right to pursue those legal actions to third parties, often creditors themselves. In that way, the business can raise funds without taking on the risk, and creditors can still benefit from successful claims.

Taken together, the reforms ensure that our insolvency and director disqualification laws remain effective, agile and fit for purpose in today's fast-moving world. The Bill's provisions are practical, timely and widely welcomed within the profession. They will serve creditors, debtors and practitioners efficiently and fairly. Therefore, I am pleased to commend the Bill to the Assembly.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Minister, thank you. I call Phillip Brett, Chair of the Committee for the Economy.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. At the outset, I want to say that this is the first time that I have served under your chairmanship since the untimely passing of your father, so if I can just record my sympathies and those of my party. I had the pleasure of knowing your dad, and he was a gentleman like you, Mr Deputy Speaker. You have been in all our thoughts in recent days.

This is the first Bill from the Department for the Economy in this mandate. The Minister has chosen a very small one, at 121 clauses and four schedules. The Department consulted on the proposed changes to insolvency law and briefed the Committee on them on a number of occasions. As the Minister has just said, the Bill is rather lengthy. I do not propose to repeat the detailed references to all the clauses, but 21 measures are involved, and I will summarise them shortly.

Insolvency arrangements are a necessary and important part of business. Clear and understandable procedures are essential in order to give business owners, investors and creditors confidence and thus provide an environment in which the economy can grow and a level of certainty can be provided for businesspeople. The Committee was advised that changes to insolvency agreements have been made in England and Wales in recent years. Almost every single one of the measures in the Bill is already in place in other parts of the United Kingdom. The Bill will therefore largely bring us into line with accepted practice in the rest of the UK. The Department has advised us of a single exception, which relates to the provision of information to the Enforcement of Judgments Office. The Committee was assured that departmental counterparts in England and Wales view that as a gap in their provision that will likely be addressed in the future. If the Bill is passed, Northern Ireland's legislative provisions will therefore be ahead of those in the rest of the United Kingdom. The Department also assured the Committee that everything in the Bill had been consulted on. Furthermore, officials confirmed that everything that came out of the recent consultation had found its way into the Bill.

The Bill allows for administrators to take High Court action against directors where they have been fraudulently trading and to assign a right of action to third parties. The Bill allows for administrators to ensure a fairer share of the benefits go to creditors, to take action that benefits creditors and to allow benefit payments to liquidators. The Bill allows for the sensible use of agreement by correspondence by administrators and for creditors to have the right to opt out of such communications.

The Bill allows for liquidators to be released where winding-up orders are rescinded; for the appointment of administrators to be extended with consent; for the official receiver immediately to become the trustee of a bankruptcy in order to allow them to sell assets to benefit the creditors; and for the removal of instances in which winding-up petitions can be used to prevent the appointment of an administrator. The Bill will make it clear that there are no assets that can be distributed to unsecured creditors.

The Bill will also ensure that the notice of intention to appoint an administrator need only be sent to prescribed persons, if there are such persons who are entitled to appoint an administrator/receiver or who hold a qualifying floating charge. The Bill removes the fast-tracking of voluntary arrangements for bankruptcies, as those provisions have been little or sparingly used in England and Wales. The Bill also allows for insolvent businesses to continue to access essential services and to prevent a supplier from insisting on payment.

The Department assured the Committee that those measures will improve the efficiency of the insolvency process, limit bureaucracy and thus discourage pointless time-wasting strategies. I anticipate that Committee members will set out their views on the principles of the Bill during the debate. Should they not speak, however, I can tell the House that the commentary at Committee was supportive of the Bill. Its passage is a matter for the House, but, that having been said, if the Bill passes its Second Stage today, the Committee's call for evidence will also commence today. Although that is not ideal, the Committee is keen to ensure that the Bill becomes law as soon as possible. The Committee agreed that, subject to the Bill's passage today, it will seek a Committee Stage extension to just before Christmas. I anticipate, however, that we will conclude our deliberations well in advance of then. I will save further comments for later legislative stages. I thank the Minister for moving the motion on the Bill's Second Stage today.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Thank you, Mr Brett, and thank you for your kind comments.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

A Leas-Cheann Comhairle

[Translation: Mr Deputy Speaker]

, I formally endorse the Committee Chair's remarks on the sad passing of your father.

As the Committee Chair outlined, we took evidence and got very helpful advice on the Bill from one of the Minister's officials. During a very informative evidence session, the official answered all the questions that were put to him in a concise yet detailed manner. We should acknowledge and thank Jack Reid for that.

A lot of the points about the legislation have been covered in the contributions from the Minister and the Committee Chair, including the fact that the Bill is about modernising our processes here. Since coming into post, the Minister has made a real effort to support local businesses and has outlined clearly the move towards regional balance, supporting our indigenous economy and trying to level the playing field. The Bill will go some way, hopefully, towards doing that and supporting businesspeople who sometimes feel that, due to circumstances beyond their control, they have come into difficulty and that that should not define the rest of their career or their life.

I therefore welcome the Second Stage, and I hope that the Bill progresses further.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Thank you, Emma. I am very grateful for your comments also.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Deputy Speaker, I have spoken to you about your dad before, but, as it is the first time that you have been in the Chair when I have been in the Chamber, I also pass on my sympathies.

I agree with what has been said. I speak in support of the Bill and welcome its Second Stage. As Alliance Party spokesperson on the economy, I recognise that the Bill is a long overdue step to modernise and strengthen our insolvency framework in this region.

As has been said, the detailed briefings that the Committee received were really reassuring. I thank Jack Reid and the departmental officials for the overview and comprehensive briefings that they gave us.

The core of the legislation is about giving businesses, especially small businesses, legal tools. In Northern Ireland, over 90% of our companies are small businesses or microbusinesses that can find themselves in circumstances that no one ever wants to experience. That is the spirit that we need to adopt here. People are forced into making choices by pressure on them that nobody ever wants to feel. The Bill provides the legal tools for businesses to restructure, recover from and possibly survive those financial difficulties.

Non-payment is a massive issue in Northern Ireland. My background is in construction, and I can say that non-payment is normally caused by the greed of the developer. They simply withhold payment to add profit, which puts small companies and microbusinesses at massive financial risk. The pain and stress that that causes and the risk that it puts on business owners are, thankfully, addressed by the Bill. That level of stress is not fully understood in the House or across society. People who go out and start their own company often put their own assets at risk to achieve their dreams. The Minister talked about energy costs and all the things that can affect a business. Bad debt is another factor. Regularly, family homes are put at risk to service bank debt. We need to address that during the passage of the Bill. We should make sure that people do not lose their home in that way. There is no stress like financial stress. It is a weight that business owners carry. Nobody goes out or starts a business to fail. That has been acknowledged throughout the House, and so it should be.

The Bill represents a positive and progressive way forward. It brings our laws in line with best practice. As the Chair of the Committee said, the example that we hear about is that in England and Wales. Following that brings us into line —.

Are you going to stop me?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

No.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

No? Sorry, I thought that you were going to stop me speaking.

The Bill brings us into line with England and Wales. In fact, as has been said, it takes us ahead of the situation there. Changes are about to be made, and we are going ahead with them. It is to be welcomed that we are not coming back to this and that we are setting stuff ahead.

The Bill provides greater clarity and certainty for business owners, creditors and individuals. Importantly, in doing so, it ensures that Northern Ireland remains competitive and an attractive place in which to invest and start a business. Too often, our outdated insolvency laws have compounded business failure rather than providing a clear route out of it and into recovery. The Bill introduces key reforms that will give viable businesses the space and flexibility to potentially get back on their feet.

It is critical that we save businesses and individuals that can be saved. It provides clarity and confidence —.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr Honeyford, are you happy to continue after Question Time?

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Yes.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

OK. Thank you.

Question Time is scheduled to commence at 2.00 pm. The debate will continue after Question Time, when Mr Honeyford will be called to continue his remarks.

Members, take your ease before Question Time begins.

The debate stood suspended.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Oral Answers to Questions — Economy

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Question 5 has been withdrawn.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

1. Mr Frew asked the Minister for the Economy whether she has had any engagement with Executive colleagues in relation to support for businesses in North Antrim impacted by recent violence. (AQO 2271/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. The recent racist violence in North Antrim was disgraceful and unacceptable, and there is no excuse for it. Businesses affected by criminal damage may be eligible to claim under the criminal damage compensation scheme run by the Department of Justice. In order to prevent a repeat of the hatred and intolerance that we saw, we need to see political and civic leadership standing united for inclusion and respect.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Ballymena in North Antrim has been in the press for all the wrong reasons due to the violence. Given that footfall is down, some eateries cannot now get chefs and workers have had to flee and go home, what specific support can the Minister give businesses in Ballymena that have been affected?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

As I said in my opening answer, we need to see strong and clear leadership to say that what happened is wrong and sends a bad message about not only Ballymena but the North as a whole. We also need to see that civic leadership coming through.

The idea of support for businesses is not the most appropriate vehicle at this point in time. We need to see a cohesive and collective approach across Departments to how we address the challenges, and, as an Executive, we have discussed that. I am also aware that the Department for Communities has provided a small amount of funding to Mid and East Antrim Borough Council to take forward work with the Ballymena business improvement district to promote Ballymena town centre. That will be useful, but I revert to the idea that we need to have strong and clear leadership on the type of society that we want: one that is inclusive for all.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Minister, I know that, like me, you will be acutely aware of how much many of our local producers rely on immigration to survive. Will you comment on the many benefits that we see from immigration into the North?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Our minority ethnic and migrant communities bring many benefits to our economy and our society. From an economic and business perspective, we want to be globally competitive, and that simply cannot be achieved in some sectors without migrant workers. From accessing international knowledge to expanding into new markets and providing niche skills that are not available locally, workers from other countries help us to grow our economy for the benefit of everyone. We also have a very tight labour market, and I know of many businesses that struggle to fill essential roles and plug essential skills gaps. That is regularly raised with me by businesses, and, without access to migrant labour, businesses simply would not be able to operate at the scale that they and our economy need them to.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

2. Miss Dolan asked the Minister for the Economy what measures are to be taken to ensure access to mobile phone coverage for people in rural areas when O2 removes access to 2G and 3G services. (AQO 2272/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member. O2 has advised that the majority of its voice and data traffic is carried on its 4G and 5G networks. While O2 is stopping roaming on its 2G network, it has no plans to switch it off and has provided an assurance that it will remain in full use for O2 customers. O2's 3G services will be switched off by the end of this year, and it is working to ensure that its 4G and 5G networks will pick up the relatively small amount of traffic that was previously carried over 3G.

Several measures have been taken to improve mobile coverage, including the shared rural network. That project consisted of mobile network operators investing to extend their coverage by upgrading their existing networks, working together on shared infrastructure and building new sites.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Thank you for that answer, Minister. As you know, the majority of my constituency is rural. Therefore, given the vital importance of a reliable phone signal for safety, connectivity and daily life in rural areas, do you agree that mobile phone providers have a moral obligation to ensure that no rural communities are left without adequate mobile coverage?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for her question. As an MLA for a rural area and someone who lives in a rural area, I recognise the issue. I struggle regularly for good coverage. I also recognise that good connectivity is essential for people, and I am aware that some areas are much better served than others. I am due to meet mobile network operators in July, so I will seek further assurances that they are doing everything in their power to ensure that the planned switch-off of 3G networks will not leave people without adequate mobile communications connectivity. I will also press them on their plans to improve connectivity in all areas, especially our rural communities.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

There is a specific problem with attacks on masts. We have seen those in west Belfast recently and in some nationalist areas. It is important that there is leadership in relation to the attacks that have happened, because mobile infrastructure is vital for people's connectivity.

I want to ask about the barrier busting task force. Can it be strengthened to have a specific look at rural areas such as my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for that question. Let me be unequivocal about this: there is absolutely no place for the attacks on 5G masts. I have already stated that clearly in the House. Those who are at that need to desist, and anybody with information should contact the PSNI.

I have mentioned the barrier busting task force previously in the House. Given its prominence in the debate on this matter, Departments are working together to specifically address some of the concerns that people have and the myth-busting that may be required. I will be happy to take the Member's point on board and to engage with officials where there are specific issues in rural areas that need to be addressed.

Diana Armstrong (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

3. Ms D Armstrong asked the Minister for the Economy for an update on her engagement with the UK Government to secure the future for workers and the facilities at Spirit AeroSystems, following the deal by Airbus to acquire part of the operations. (AQO 2273/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I have been in active discussions with the British Government to emphasise the strategic importance of Spirit's operations in the North. Less than a fortnight ago, I met the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, Jonny Reynolds, in London, where I highlighted the need for a positive and sustainable outcome for the company and its workers. I spoke to Minister Sarah Jones last week, when I highlighted the importance of a positive solution and the need to protect jobs and the supply chain. My Department, along with the Executive Office and Invest NI, continues to work collaboratively with the British Government to ensure the best possible result for the workforce and the local economy.

The acquisition of the A220 wing facility by Airbus was a positive development and provides assurance about job security for many highly skilled workers. However, the priority remains ensuring that all the jobs are protected. I remain engaged with all stakeholders to ensure a long-term, sustainable future for the remaining operations and workforce.

Diana Armstrong (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Thank you for your response, Minister. You will be aware that Unite the union and the GMB union are doing a lot of background work to protect jobs. You mentioned that you are doing that too. You may also have noted that the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is seeking responses to its inquiry into Boeing's anticipated acquisition of Spirit AeroSystems. Will your Department feed into that inquiry as well?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for her question. I have engaged with trade union representatives on a number of occasions on the work that they continue to do across the board to get a good outcome, and I continue to support them in that. My officials and I will engage with the Member on that ongoing work.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

The Minister has already detailed some of the engagement that she has had with trade unions. Will she also outline the engagement that she has had with employee representatives and any more detail on the engagement with trade unions and how that will be used in the ongoing negotiations?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

As I mentioned to Diana, I have had significant engagement with the trade unions along with the First Minister and deputy First Minister and Invest NI. We have regularly met. I fully understand and appreciate the concerns that they express, and I have communicated those to Spirit AeroSystems, Airbus and the British Government. I will continue to support them in their efforts and will work alongside them to find the best possible outcome.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

The Minister rightly articulated the importance of the aerospace and defence sector to the Northern Ireland economy, which is already worth £2·2 billion. The strategic defence review, which I recently submitted a question for written answer to you about, has the opportunity to provide thousands of jobs and billions of pounds' worth of investment. The Minister gave only a one-line response to me. Will she outline today what proactive work she has done to secure investment from that strategic defence review for companies across Northern Ireland?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. I will work with and support companies in achieving all the objectives of my economic vision of creating good jobs, promoting regional balance, raising productivity and having decarbonisation. I am happy to work with companies to achieve that and, of course, to support them in their efforts in engaging with the British Government.

I am well on record, as is my party, about how we would like to see public funding invested, and that is in public services. The fact is that we continue to see the prioritisation of defence over public services, and that is certainly not where we should be investing. Businesses will, of course, continue to engage with British Government representatives on all strategies, as they see fit.

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

We have just met the all-party group on construction. It outlined the reality that a number of companies that were scheduled to set up business in the North have now relocated elsewhere, including to the Republic. A major company tried to set up business in Newry but relocated to the Republic because of a lack of infrastructure. What does the Minister know about that issue, and what is she doing to address it?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Businesses make decisions for many commercial reasons, and they will, of course, do that on where they choose to locate. My work across the Department and the Executive is to create the best possible environment for businesses to start up, grow and thrive. My focus continues to be on ensuring that there is adequate support for skills and the business environment to achieve that.

I am working with Executive colleagues to address some of the challenges that we face, particularly in respect of infrastructure. Those challenges are well rehearsed, as are the reasons for them. The decades of underfunding of our infrastructure will take a significant time to address. It is something that my colleague, the Infrastructure Minister, has at the top of her priorities and that the Executive collectively will work to do.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

4. Ms Forsythe asked the Minister for the Economy to outline how much of the £45 million regional balance fund has been used to date. (AQO 2274/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Local economic partnerships represent a new approach to developing economic policy and promoting regional balance. Local areas will identify their own economic priorities, and partners will work together to deliver those priorities. Partnerships will be supported with a £45 million fund over three years. Funding will issue to councils in arrears on the basis of activity undertaken. That means that funding will be issued to councils only at specific points in the year and will depend on the activity in their area. In addition, having listened to councils, I expect greater spending to be weighted towards years 2 and 3, as activity accelerates and projects are delivered on the ground.

The partnerships need time to do the crucial work in setting out their priorities, which will set the agenda for delivery. My Department and Invest NI are supporting them in that work.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Much is said about regional balance for the north-west, but, in representing South Down, I am concerned that the south-east does not feature so highly on the agenda. I am keen to make sure that the money is drawn down and drawn down fast and that it hits the rural communities. Does the Minister have any specific targets or engagement for the south-east of the Province?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for her question. Her point is well made. What we are trying to achieve with those local economic partnerships is for every area to have the opportunity to design its own economic priorities and to leverage support from my Department, Invest NI and other Departments to help achieve them. We are providing the resource to support them to do that. I have had significant opportunity to visit the south-east: I have had a number of engagements in Newry, Warrenpoint and Kilkeel. There is so much opportunity to be leveraged and harnessed there. The work of the local economic partnerships is designed to do exactly that.

Ciara Ferguson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I very much welcome the work of the local economic partnerships, particularly in the north-west, in addressing regional imbalance. Minister, what is your assessment of Invest NI's contribution to regional balance?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for her question. The Invest NI business strategy for 2024-27 set ambitious and challenging targets. I am pleased to see that the organisation has increased investments outside the Belfast metropolitan area (BMA) from 56% to 59%. I look forward to Invest NI achieving its target of 65% of investments being outside the BMA by the end of the strategy period. I am also encouraged by the proactive and positive work that Invest NI does with partners on key issues. The city and growth deals, the Magee task force, the social enterprise partnership and, of course, the local economic partnerships are all key initiatives in helping to drive greater balance across the North.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Was £8 million of the regional balance fund returned and reprofiled for future years? Is the Minister concerned that that delay, or any delay, in spending could limit the impact or ambition of projects that are intended to tackle regional imbalance in the short term, particularly in areas like the north-west?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. As I mentioned to Diane in my opening answer, the £45 million of funding for local economic partnerships is over the three-year period. Having engaged with councils, we anticipate that the bulk of that will come in years 2 and 3. We have given councils the space to set up their local economic partnerships. Ten of the 11 councils have done that. It was important for councils to have the space to develop those partnerships as they saw fit. It was also important to ensure that they had the space to develop the project proposals. We have given them that flexibility, and the funding will flow accordingly over the next couple of years.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

6. Mr K Buchanan asked the Minister for the Economy to outline any support available for the installation of solar panels within domestic settings. (AQO 2276/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Financial support is not currently available for homeowners who wish to install solar panels. However, options for microgeneration support, including domestic renewable generation such as solar panels, will continue to be evaluated as part of our net zero ambitions. The Windsor framework enables extension to the North of the VAT relief for energy-saving materials that was previously available only in Britain. That means that people here will also be able to apply zero rates of VAT to the installation of energy-saving materials such as heat pumps and solar panels. Homeowners may wish to seek independent advice on solar panels, heat pumps and other energy-efficiency matters from organisations such as NI Energy Advice. Those technologies have the potential to provide an attractive payback to homeowners without there being grant support.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Thank you for your answer, Minister. There was a consultation on the socialisation of NIE connection costs that, I think, has now closed. Can you provide an update on where that sits? Broadly, what are your plans on that?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for that question. He is quite right: the consultation has closed. Officials are working through the responses, and advice in respect of the socialisation policy and the way forward will be with me shortly . As the previous Economy Minister set out, the preferred option was for the socialisation of those charges. All of us in the House will have had representations on the high costs of connection from businesses and others, particularly in rural areas. I will be considering that in the very near future.

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

Critical to reducing bills will be delivery of the North/South interconnector. Given the failure to deliver on other critical cross-border infrastructure — the A5 — and your previous, at best, mixed words on the interconnector, are you committed to delivery of the North/South interconnector? Will that project be delivered before the end of the mandate?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. He is quite right: I am well on record on that issue. Previously, the North/South interconnector received planning consent from his party colleague. We are obligated to deliver on that. I see it as crucial infrastructure for our energy systems across the island and our ability to meet our renewables and other targets. The process is ongoing in the North already. As the Member is likely to be aware, delays were announced in the South recently. Obviously, they need to look at how they will address those challenges. I have had an opportunity to engage with the Minister there in respect of that. As the Member will know, ongoing community opposition is posing significant challenges. I anticipate that it will continue to do so.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

7. Mr Kearney asked the Minister for the Economy for an update on her Department's support for employee ownership. (AQO 2277/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

The benefits of employee ownership are well documented and strongly align with my economic plans. Employee-owned businesses pay, on average, a higher wage. They are more likely to remain in the same location and invest in their local economy. They can be up to 12% more productive because of increased employee engagement and motivation.

On 19 June, I attended S&W Wholesale in Newry to celebrate Employee Ownership Day. While I was there, I announced funding of £97,500 to Employee Ownership Ireland for this financial year. It is the collective ambition of my Department and Employee Ownership Ireland to see 10,000 employee owners in place across the North by 2030. The funding will contribute to that goal by increasing awareness of the employee ownership trust model and by funding feasibility studies for businesses that are considering the transition to employee ownership.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

This morning, at the Irish Congress of Trade Unions biennial delegate conference in Belfast, I, along with hundreds of trade unionists and visitors, listened to your presentation on the 'good jobs' Bill. It was extremely well received. Your support for employee ownership, as stated, is also very welcome. Can you confirm whether drafting is now under way to strengthen the positive contribution that trade unions can make in that regard?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question and comments. The development of policies that strengthen the voice of workers and, of course, their representatives is a core aspect of my good jobs agenda. That is reflected in the 'good jobs' employment rights Bill consultation document, in the voice and representation chapter, and the announcements that were then set out on 28 April. Officials are working to develop the finer operational practicalities that relate to several of the policy areas that were included across those proposals, including in the voice and representation chapter, such as the right of trade unions to request access to workplaces and electronic balloting. Engagement with trade union officials and employer representative members of the Labour Relations Agency engagement forum is ongoing on those matters. That work will be taken forward in parallel with the drafting of the Bill with Office of the Legislative Counsel colleagues. It is my intention to introduce the Bill to the Assembly in January 2026.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

8. Mr Honeyford asked the Minister for the Economy to outline what consideration she is giving to the redesign of the enterprise support ecosystem, including the potential re-establishment of the entrepreneurship co-design group. (AQO 2278/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Small businesses are the backbone of our economy. They make a huge economic and social contribution to local communities across the North. To better understand the challenges and opportunities that they face, I am establishing an SME entrepreneurship co-design group. The group will be made up of stakeholders from the enterprise support ecosystem, representing government, academia, finance and business support organisations. It will collaborate to develop an action plan with recommendations that are aimed at increasing business creation across the North and enhancing the overall entrepreneurial landscape.

The action plan will have a lifespan of up to three years. My Department will oversee its implementation in partnership with co-design group members. Membership of the group is being finalised at present. Once that is done, the group's work will start, with the aim of publishing an action plan before the end of the year.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for her answer. It is good news that the process will be simplified, thus allowing small businesses to have greater flexibility. Will the Minister give me a timeline for when she hopes the group to be place? She said that the action plan will have a lifespan of up to three years. Will the Minister give more detail on the membership of the group? Who will be on it and how many members will it have?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

As I said, we hope to establish it very soon, and we aim to have an action plan published before the end of the year. The group's work will then continue over the next three years. Its membership is still to be finalised, but the broad groups that I mentioned — government, academia, business support organisations, enterprise support organisations and the finance community — will be involved. Once we have finalised the membership, I will be happy to share it with the Member and rest of the Assembly.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

What does the spending review mean for the future of Go Succeed, which has become a core part of the local enterprise ecosystem?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. The British Government's spending review was announced on 11 June. They have committed to the creation of a new local growth fund to replace the Shared Prosperity Fund, but they have, so far, failed to provide the detail about the fund and how it will be delivered. We do know, however, that the funding that will be available over the next three years will be fixed in cash terms at the level provided under the Shared Prosperity Fund in 2025-26. In other words, it is a funding cut in real terms. The Shared Prosperity Fund failed to replace fully the value of the EU structural funds that were available here in the first place, so to be facing further reductions in funding is deeply disappointing. That will have an impact on the future of the programmes, including Go Succeed, that were delivered under its banner and the level of service that is able to be provided. Last week, I spoke with Alex Norris MP from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and asked him to provide clarification on the local growth fund urgently. It is vital that Go Succeed be told what funding may be available to support its services and how it can be accessed as soon as possible. The same is true for the other programmes that are delivered under that banner.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

9. Mr Clarke asked the Minister for the Economy to outline any steps her Department is taking to attract high-quality, long-term investment to Northern Ireland, in particular to South Antrim. (AQO 2279/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Attracting productivity-enhancing, regionally distributed inward investment is central to my Department's economic strategy for the North. I am committed to strengthening our position as a leading destination for global investment. The North has a proven track record of attracting high-value, innovative investment, with over 1,500 international companies choosing to locate here, 64% of which have reinvested. That reflects strong investor confidence in our skilled workforce, modern infrastructure, competitive costs and uniquely advantageous access to the British and EU markets. I work closely with Invest NI, locally and internationally, to promote the region's investment proposition to prospective and existing investors.

South Antrim is well placed to benefit. The £700 million Belfast region city deal and, in particular, the Advanced Manufacturing Innovation Centre will help attract cutting-edge industries, strengthen local supply chains and create high-value jobs, thus positioning the area as a hub for advanced manufacturing. In addition, my Department is investing £45 million over the next three years in local economic partnerships. Those will bring together government, business and academia to drive regional growth and enhance our foreign direct investment offering. South Antrim can leverage those partnerships to attract investment, foster innovation and support local enterprise development.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for that comprehensive answer. The Government sold off the family silver when they sold Belfast International Airport, leaving it in private ownership alongside the two other airports. Given that Belfast International Airport is the premier airport — the only one able to accommodate large carriers — what is the Minister's team doing specifically to help it grow, to advance it as the leading airport in Northern Ireland and to bring in other investment to the area?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. I had the opportunity to visit Belfast International Airport very recently to see the enhancements made during the redevelopment of the terminal. I also had the opportunity to discuss the airport's further plans, and I am happy to continue to engage with it in that regard.

My Department has recently taken on aviation policy. We are working to draft new policy in that area. We are working with Belfast International Airport and the other local airports on how we utilise our air links to best effect. We are an island; we need to bring people to it. Our air routes are really important to us. How do they enhance our economic offering as a whole? That will be developed over the next number of months. I am happy to engage with the Member in that respect.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We now move to topical questions. Sinéad McLaughlin's question has been withdrawn.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

T2. Mr Frew asked the Minister for the Economy what engagement she has had on the Great British Energy Act 2025. (AQT 1492/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. I have had the opportunity to engage with the Ministers responsible. Officials continue to engage at official level on GB Energy and the proposals that are being brought forward in that regard. As I mentioned, I was in London just under a fortnight ago. I met Minister Michael Shanks and had a further discussion about GB Energy and how we make sure that businesses here and others are able to access the opportunities and funding that will flow through GB Energy.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her answer. What benefits and opportunities does the Minister see in the Act?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

One of the particular areas of focus that we discussed with Minister Shanks was community ownership and community benefit models, so that local communities get buy-in and are able to drive forward their own energy agenda. That is something that the Government are keen to promote through GB Energy. From a departmental perspective, there are other policy areas that we are seeking to develop, whether in relation to biomethane or hydrogen. We will look for opportunities to work with private-sector companies to access that funding in order to support our objectives. That will also help us to achieve our renewable energy targets and climate targets.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

T3. Mr Boylan asked the Minister for the Economy how she intends to use the funding that was allocated to her Department in yesterday's monitoring round. (AQT 1493/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. The Department was allocated a £9·8 million resource departmental expenditure limit, which will enable me to provide £7 million to the higher education sector. In addition, £2·8 million resource funding has been secured for energy. Regarding capital, DFE was allocated £2·5 million, which has allowed me to provide certainty to the higher education institutes on quality-related research funding.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Will she confirm that the funding that was allocated to Queen's University will allow the Momentum One Zero project to proceed?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Following constructive engagement with Queen's University, a resolution has been reached that provides the funding needed for the university to proceed with the Momentum One Zero project. I am fully committed to the Momentum One Zero project and recognise its strategic importance to Queen's University, the Belfast region city deal and the wider economy in the North. My officials will continue to work closely with Queen's University to support the project's progression, including the construction of the innovation centre, which is anticipated to commence in early autumn.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

T4. Ms Forsythe asked the Minister for the Economy, given that Northern Ireland tourism is an important part of her remit in the Department for the Economy, whether she recognises that the Mourne Mountains are one of the biggest tourist attractions in Northern Ireland. (AQT 1494/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for her question. Many of us recognise the importance of the Mournes as a tourism attraction. I had the opportunity to attempt to mount Slieve Donard, but I did not get all the way to the top. The Mournes are a really important asset that we have. They add to the collective assets that we are really lucky to have as part of our portfolio. I, as the Minister responsible for tourism, have the pleasure of being able to sell them as destinations for people to visit.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

Thank you, Minister. I welcome your commitment. I have been a bit frustrated with our local council, which has repeatedly diminished tourism in the Mourne Mountains and the Mournes area and has removed the name of the area from its tourism branding. The £30 million allocation through the Belfast region city deal was for a world-class tourist destination that promoted the Mourne Mountains. Since the failure of the initial project, the council has been keen to realign the £30 million elsewhere in the district. Will you, as Minister, and the Department for the Economy, as a key partner, commit to keeping the £30 million city deal money for a tourist attraction in the Mourne Mountains?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

First, we have given the space to the Belfast region city deal group and its partners to bring forward proposals. I am happy to engage with them as they do that, and it is important that they take the necessary time and space to consider the opportunities and options that are in front of them and how to best utilise the funding. The case has been made that the funding should stay in the Newry, Mourne and Down District Council area, and I am happy to support that if it is the wish of the Belfast region city deal group.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

T5. Mr Gildernew asked the Minister for the Economy to provide an update on when there will be a consultation on compensation for severe weather events. (AQT 1495/22-27)

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his question. We all recognise that the impact of climate change means that we are experiencing more severe weather events, and our communities are bearing the brunt of those events. It is important that we ensure that the level of service that customers receive from their utility providers is fit for purpose. I am working with the Utility Regulator (UR), which has responsibility for carrying out a consultation, to look at amendments to the guaranteed standard of service for electricity, including during adverse weather incidents.

I have been assured by the chair of the board of the Utility Regulator, Rosamund Blomfield-Smith, that it is working to issue the consultation as soon as possible. I have impressed on the Utility Regulator the importance of moving at pace to progress that important work. Once my Department receives the Utility Regulator's analysis of the consultation and a decision paper, we will work as quickly as possible to make any updates to the legislation that are required. I will, of course, update the House as that work progresses.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Minister will know that many rural areas, particularly in my constituency, were badly affected by the most recent severe weather event. What were the findings of the previous consultation on the same issue?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

The Utility Regulator consulted on the issue in 2023, setting out proposals for guaranteed standards of service for electricity suppliers and the level of compensatory payments and asked respondents to comment on them. Those proposals included the introduction of a guaranteed standard of service during cases of severe weather. The UR did not progress to a decision paper as very few responses were received and there was not the necessary evidence base to support change.

Órlaithí Flynn (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

T6. Ms Flynn asked the Minister for the Economy, after stating that it was great to see her recently at St Mary's University College, which, as she knows, is a vital part of the community in west Belfast, to launch the Féile an Phobail programme, whether she will consider restoring the premia that was paid to St Mary's and Stranmillis University College to ensure the financial viability of both institutions. (AQT 1496/22-27)