Northern Ireland Assembly, 29 September 2025

345 contributions from 61 members. The official report.

Matter of the Day

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Paula Bradshaw has been given leave to make a statement on a digital ID scheme, which fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. If other Members wish to be called, they should rise in their place and continue to do so. All Members will have up to three minutes to speak. I remind Members that there will be no interventions.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for accepting this Matter of the Day.

On Friday, the Prime Minister announced plans for a UK-wide digital ID card scheme — a so-called BritCard — that people would need in order to prove their right to work. My honest interpretation is that the scheme is trying to fix a problem that does not really exist. There is no wave of people slipping through the net that justifies such a heavy-handed approach. To me, it looks less like a practical solution and more like a political gesture that plays into an ever-growing and dangerous anti-immigrant agenda, rather than dealing with the real issues that people face here and across the UK. We do not need a digital ID card to tell us who can work and who cannot; that system already exists. Right-to-work checks, visa controls and employer liability rules address the majority of that perceived problem. Furthermore, making it a mandatory requirement will not automatically prevent fraud: it will just promote a dangerous narrative and shift the blame. I think that most people here can see straight through that, and that it will just not work for Northern Ireland. In fact, in the past few days, I have been struck by how many people in the Chamber and beyond, in political parties, have commented on the issue. It is infrequent that we see so many politicians here singing from the same hymn sheet. I look forward to hearing other people's contributions.

We have a particular settlement here in Northern Ireland. People are entitled to be British, Irish or both. It is an individual's prerogative. That sits at the heart of the Good Friday Agreement. Forcing everyone into a single UK identity card system risks completely cutting across that right, reopening questions and tensions that should be left protected and untouched. Furthermore, there is the blatant issue of practicality in day-to-day living here in Northern Ireland. Thousands of people live in the South and work in the North, and vice versa. As we often see with UK legislation that is applied to Northern Ireland, none of that appears to have been thought through with regard to the realities of our existence here.

Finally, there is the question of trust. If all the data is put in one place, it will be a huge target. People are right to ask who will hold the information, how secure it will be and what it will be used for, but perhaps those questions are for another day. The proposal may be worth pursuing by others across the UK, but it is an issue of identity and everyday life here.

At the weekend, we saw what people in Northern Ireland think of the proposal. While social media posts and press statements are important and influential in a way, it is important that we address the issue in the Chamber so that we, as elected representatives to the Assembly, can put our opinions on the record. I thank everyone in advance for their contributions.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

The British Government are never not at it, and they are at it with this ludicrous and ill-thought-out scheme to introduce a so-called BritCard. The proposal demonstrates to people in the North that the British Government either do not understand the protections and rights enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement, of which they are a co-guarantor, or simply do not care about them. No British Government have the right to impose identity on Irish citizens. The right to:

"identify ... as Irish or British, or both"

is a foundation of the Good Friday Agreement.

The proposal is a clear attempt by the British Prime Minister to deflect from his political failings in Britain. The proposal for the mandatory BritCard is an attack on Irish citizens in the North. We in Sinn Féin will make it our business to stand up for and continue to defend the rights of Irish citizens in the North. The scheme is a non-starter, and Keir Starmer and his British Government should immediately pause it and reconsider.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I have no doubt that, if the scheme is wrong for Northern Ireland, it is wrong for the rest of the United Kingdom. Everyone who speaks on the subject should say so and defend the United Kingdom from this potential tragedy.

The scheme is a so-called solution that is trying to find a problem, and the Government just happen to have selected the number-one issue that has been vexing so many British minds of late. Do not be fooled: illegal immigration and illegal working are totally unacceptable, and the issues need to be resolved immediately. They need to be resolved across the UK, including Northern Ireland, but the scheme will not do that. It is not even designed to do so. This is state overreach, and, as is always the case, it is about making people millionaires. Over 70 million people do not need to be given a digital ID to stop 0·05% of that number arriving illegally. We already have a visa system through which people's right to work is displayed, but it is not enforced. If employers do not check visas, why would they check a digital ID card?

A digital form of ID is not a harmless card in your hip pocket that can be shown to a person in authority. The British people have balked at such a proposition even in the worst of times. Such measures can and have been used, even in recent history, to coerce people into a position that they did not wish to be in. They enable the Government to widen the scope to cover all other matters and to control what people can and cannot do. That is what vaccine certification did during the pandemic. The Government could easily change the scope of and conditions in every sphere of life, and we would have no say in it and no choice but to comply.

Members may say, "It couldn't happen like that in a civilised country", to which I reply, "Look at Canada". There, the protesting truckers and everyone who supported or funded them had their bank accounts blocked, because Trudeau did not like their opinions. The first question in the debate should be this: why is the state making it mandatory? The state should not force people to do anything that could put them and their private information in jeopardy. I hear Members say, "But I have a digital wallet for all sorts of services on my phone. I hand over personal information all the time, and it makes my life so handy". Yes, we give data to private organisations, but they cannot compel us to do so. We have a choice. Only the Government of the day can pass laws to control people's lives and use the digital ID —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

— to make us comply.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

The Ulster Unionist Party, not surprisingly, vehemently opposes any attempt to introduce digital ID. Far from being the "bedrock of the modern state", as Labour's new enforcer in the Cabinet Office, Darren Jones, called it, it is designed to act as a control mechanism, and it is fundamentally un-British. However, knowing how our Government manage to do contracts and things with IT — I am glad to see that Mr Carroll is here — they will probably give the contract to Fujitsu, so it will cost billions and not work.

As to employers and employment, it will not stop employers on the grey and black employment trail. They will still employ workers without looking at the right digitisation or documentation. We know that; they do it now. That will not change, so it is a red herring.

The scheme will also — if it comes into force, which I do not think it will — create a digital passport border in the Irish Sea. That will add to the internal trade border that was created in the Irish Sea by the Windsor framework. That is completely unacceptable. It is unacceptable to me as a unionist; it should be unacceptable to anybody who believes in the United Kingdom; and it should be unacceptable to anybody who believes in the Belfast/Good Friday Agreement.

Finally, let us be honest: this is blatant political posturing by the Prime Minister. He did not even give the message to his own Ministers. Anybody who listened to the Minister on the 'Today' programme will have heard her say, "No, this will not be a mandatory issue". About 20 minutes after she came off the air, the Cabinet Office and the Prime Minister's Office came out and said, "It will be mandatory". Go and talk to Labour MPs: none of them was told. This is just a blatant attempt by Keir Starmer to grab headlines. Like most of the things that our Prime Minister has done recently, it is badly and poorly thought-out. I think I speak for every Member of the Assembly when I say this is not a good idea. It should be buried as quickly as possible.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

It will be no surprise to hear that the SDLP, too, thinks that the scheme is not a good idea. We reject —

[Interruption.]

Sorry? Who is shouting?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Please continue.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

OK.

We reject the Government's proposal for the so-called BritCard. I am an SDLP MLA for Foyle, and our constituency lives and breathes cross-border cooperation every day. I find it really hard to see how such a scheme could work within the common travel area. In Derry, our lives are shaped by the open border with Donegal. Families, workers, students, patients and shoppers move freely back and forth, often several times a day. A one-size-fits-all digital ID imposed from Westminster ignores that simple reality. It is a risk to the flow of daily life and the economic and social ties that we depend on.

The proposal also cuts across the hard-won rights enshrined in the Good Friday Agreement, including the right of people here to identify as British, Irish or both and to have those identities respected. Imposing a BritCard undermines that delicate balance and the progress that we have made over the past 27 years. Let us be clear: the scheme does nothing to address the real challenges that people face, whether that is access to public services, the cost-of-living crisis or the need for genuine immigration reform that respects human rights and dignity.

The SDLP will continue to argue for solutions that are practical, rights-based and reflective of Northern Ireland's unique circumstances. We will also table urgent Assembly questions to establish what engagement, if any, the Executive had with the UK Government before the announcement. People here deserve transparency and a say in policies that affect their daily lives. We need to see a collective response from the Executive on digital ID cards. The Executive must articulate Northern Ireland's position: that is what it means to be leaders. The absence of a co-ordinated, unified response from the Executive is a failure and lets down people in all of our communities.

I join my colleague, SDLP leader, Claire Hanna, in calling for Northern Ireland to be exempt from this unworkable scheme. Our community cannot be treated as an afterthought or perhaps not be thought of at all in decisions that threaten the very fabric of cross-border life.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Keir Starmer has shown that he is a Prime Minister on his way out, after once again showing us all that he is out of touch with our cherished British values. He has ensured that many of his MPs will rightly receive their P45s at the next election through his foolish attempts to introduce mandatory digital IDs. It shows a Prime Minister who is out of touch with public opinion and a Prime Minister with no answers on how to stop the boats. If the Government are truly committed to stopping illegal crossings, direct measures are required to stop the boats in the Channel before people reach the UK shores. Quitting the European Convention on Human Rights would be the first logical step; freezing non-essential immigration would be the second; and immediately deporting those who arrive here illegally, rather than accommodating them in hotels, would be the third.

I share people's genuine concerns about the proposed centralisation of personal data. Collecting and storing all citizens' personal information in one digital system carries clear risks — risks of misuse by the Government and data breaches by hackers. Most important, the introduction of digital IDs will have ramifications for the civil liberties that we all enjoy, and they must be resisted. The TUV is clear: this is a cynical ploy to fool voters that something is being done about illegal immigration when the reality is that there are genuine fears that it will impinge further on the freedoms of UK citizens.

The digital ID debate raises another equally serious question regarding the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom. Digital ID is a national matter. There can be no Irish Sea ID border. I am glad that my party leader will oppose the scheme's introduction at Westminster, but there must be no question of yielding to Sinn Féin's anti-British agenda by exempting Northern Ireland from a UK-wide system. Doing so would create a dangerous two-tier approach to citizenship: one for Great Britain and another for Northern Ireland. I caution unionist colleagues in the House. Our legitimate concerns over ID cards must not be exploited to drive yet another wedge between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. We must not allow constitutional integrity to be undermined for political convenience.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

It is worth emphasising that this terrible idea has its origins in the days of Tony Blair and his Government, who began a serious crackdown on civil liberties 20 or so years ago. Keir Starmer — a willing follower and student of Blairism and Tony Blair — has taken his warped ideas of restricting people's rights to another level and different terrain. It should be opposed outright. If the Government in Britain want to plough ahead with it, I strongly encourage people here and in Britain to oppose it and not to take part in the proposed scheme.

Some of this is about Labour trying to show that it is tough on migration and asylum seekers. It shows how little a clue Keir Starmer or even Morgan McSweeney have about immigration. The latter is being accused of not declaring £700,000 of public money that was gained by his Labour Together group, which, allegedly, came up with this bonkers policy.

The proposal is not fully about immigration; it is about a huge expansion of the digital infrastructure for a surveillance state, for which a huge corporate organisation is likely to be paid. This is a state that already clamps down, spies on and arrests campaigners and activists. The scheme will create even more barriers to public life for racialised minorities and those who are already digitally excluded. During a cost-of-living crisis, ongoing genocide in Gaza, climate breakdown and rampant homelessness, this is the last thing that the Government should plough ahead with. Members have said that the scheme is very un-British. There is a rich history in Britain of challenging monarchy and aristocracy, with the Chartist movement fighting for votes for working-class people. However, the scheme is very "British Government", who, in the past, have always talked about decency and democracy but have clamped down on activism and campaigning left, right and centre.

There are huge questions about who will administer the scheme. Will it be, as has been suggested, Fujitsu, a company that has gained hundreds of millions of pounds in public money despite being mired in scandal? Will it be Palantir, with which the British Government already have a cosy relationship and which has been accused of all sorts of horrible things? The scheme should be opposed and challenged. If the Government try to plough ahead with it, I encourage people to resist taking part.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I call Claire Sugden.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I hope that you are feeling better.

The announcement by the Labour Government of a UK-wide digital ID raises immediate and obvious concerns. A centralised system of that kind concentrates personal data in a way that inevitably increases the risk of government overreach and surveillance. It creates a single target for hackers and comes with enormous cost at a time when our public services are already stretched.

I share the criticisms that others have expressed. From listening to everyone's contribution, it is clear that there is unanimous opposition to the proposal in Northern Ireland, which in itself is significant. What concerns me further is that the proposal fails to take into account the Northern Ireland context that is not only about the constitutional question and people's identity but about the practical realities of living in a part of the United Kingdom that shares a land border with Ireland. The movement of people and services across the border is a daily fact of life, yet the policy reads as though it was designed for England, without thought for how it will work in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.

Beyond that, there are issues that must be recognised. A digital-only identification system risks excluding significant parts of our population. It presumes universal access to smartphones, reliable broadband and digital confidence. Those are not realities in Northern Ireland. Many older people do not use digital devices, and many rural areas do not have adequate connectivity. The consequence is that those who are most in need of public services will be the very people who are least able to access them.

The justification by the Prime Minister does not stand up to scrutiny. He said that the digital ID will help address undocumented migration, but undocumented migrants, by definition, remain outside official systems. They will not register for digital ID; instead, the burden will fall to ordinary citizens who already comply with the law. If someone intends to avoid the system, they will. The policy fails its own test.

People want effective border management, fairness and public services that work. They do not want another layer of bureaucracy. I am left wondering what the justification for the ID is, because on no level does it seem like a popular or sensible policy choice.

It is not a new idea. Labour pushed ID cards nearly two decades ago and failed, because they were expensive, intrusive and ineffective. Repackaging them in a digital form does not solve those problems; it amplifies them. The question, therefore, is not whether the scheme is workable but why Labour is pursuing it at all. Why prioritise an old, failed policy when health, education and basic public services are in urgent need of investment? There is no clear rationale, no convincing evidence and no public demand.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I am not too old to remember a time in the House when Alliance, Sinn Féin and the SDLP were drooling at the prospect of a Labour Government. How has that worked out for them? Farming has been destroyed; businesses have been taxed to death; pensioners' pockets have been targeted; the economy is on its knees; illegal immigration is soaring; and now digital ID. Who could not have seen that one coming from the sister party of the SDLP, which called for nurses to be sacked during the COVID pandemic?

Who do you think you are kidding, Mr Starmer? We see through every element of the flawed policy. I have a passport, a driving licence and a National Insurance card. I have the basic apparatus that allows me to be a citizen in this United Kingdom. To introduce such a policy is evidence, if it were ever needed, that the PM is everything that George Orwell predicted: a pound-shop Tony Blair.

My reasons are clear: the DUP opposes digital ID cards because we do not want to be part of big-government, invasive, snooping technology that has the potential to be abused. Alliance, the SDLP and Sinn Féin oppose the cards because of four letters: Brit. That is not lost on us.

The DUP will oppose the policy because it is not in the national interest: the interest of the people of the entirety of the United Kingdom. To say that it would reduce illegal immigration is utter gaslighting. If the PM were serious about addressing illegal immigration, he would deploy strong border enforcement; he would stop boats; and he would stop the abuse by the legal profession in making a mockery of UK law by interpreting policy and legislation on asylum seekers in such a way as to enable them to come by the boatload.

I notice that there has been nothing about immigration from Sinn Féin, the SDLP or Alliance. That does not bother them. They want to cover it all in the word "Brit". Be under no illusion: we will oppose that system. There should be no carve-out for Northern Ireland under a policy that should not exist in the entirety of the United Kingdom. However, what would Sinn Féin say if the Republic of Ireland were to make such a statement?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

They say that a week is a long time in politics. Mr Starmer's most recent announcement has sent political opponents of the DUP into a tailspin. Last week, when changing her latest deadline for a united Ireland and a border poll, Mary Lou McDonald said that decisions made at Westminster did not impact on the people of Northern Ireland, yet she flew off to the mainland United Kingdom to set out her opposition to the policy. The irony of that will not be lost on the people of Northern Ireland.

Last week, in a radio debate with me, the leader of the TUV made it clear that he wants the Assembly collapsed and powers handed over to Keir Starmer. Now, Mr Gaston has articulated his opposition to Mr Starmer's remarks.

[Interruption.]

Again, the TUV is in a tailspin on that issue.

[Interruption.]

I am absolutely delighted that the DUP has been consistent and robust in its opposition to the policy.

[Interruption.]

Since 2006, the party has been on the record, with our speeches and votes in Parliament making it clear that we will never support mandatory ID for the people of any part of the United Kingdom.

In North Belfast, which my colleague Mr Kingston and I are honoured to represent, over 3,000 members of the public have signed a parliamentary petition opposing the introduction of the scheme. It is a matter of deep regret for me and for those whom I represent that their voices will not be heard in a vote on the issue. Our Member of Parliament is more interested in pursuing his legal career than representing the people of North Belfast.

Let me be clear, however: Mr Kingston and I, and the Democratic Unionist Party, will be a voice for people of all traditions and none in North Belfast in making it clear that we oppose the scheme. The DUP will oppose it and ensure that it is voted down in Parliament.

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

I will be very brief. I will make two quick points. First, the ID card policy is completely misguided. As others have said, it is not necessary, because in-work checks already exist. It is completely misguided because of the conditions on this island, with the cross-border life that people already lead and the all-island economy that we hope to build. It is wrong-headed, it is impractical, and it is completely misguided. Claire Hanna and Colum Eastwood will take their seats, and they will argue against it. They will oppose it in general, and, if it is to be applied in Britain, they will call for Northern Ireland to be exempted. Let us be absolutely clear about that.

I asked to speak because we have in the Assembly today something that we do not have very often: complete unanimity. Not just the four Executive parties and the Opposition but the TUV and People Before Profit all agree it is a bad idea.

[Interruption.]

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I am glad that you have come onside.

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

There is heckling from the DUP.

[Interruption.]

We all agree that it is a bad idea. All the Executive parties agree that it is a bad idea.

[Interruption.]

The public of Northern Ireland —

[Interruption.]

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Vaccines certificates —

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

Stop chuntering. You have had your say.

The public of Northern Ireland watching this might wonder, "We have a devolved government here. What is their position?" It has consistently been the case that, when Northern Ireland's interests are at stake, even if for different reasons — we know that our party disagrees with this for a different reason than the DUP — we oppose it. The Executive parties all oppose it. So do not come into the Chamber and stand up and say, for different reasons and facing different directions, that we all oppose it. Do your jobs.

[Interruption.]

Lead. I went on the Executive Office website this morning, and there is nothing on there other than waffle and photo opportunities. The Executive parties, rather than coming in here and picking fights with one another, should do their jobs. They take their salaries and they take their ministerial cars. Do your jobs, work together for the people of Northern Ireland and do not just come in here and throw around bickering waffle.

Members' Statements

Gerry Kelly (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Let me begin by stating that I am a member of the Policing Board, but I do not speak for it today. The McCullough review report sets out a stark assessment of the PSNI's practices around the surveillance of journalists, lawyers and others. Sinn Féin welcomes the depth of his work in uncovering the scale of activity and also recognises the limitations of what he could access. It is now clear that some elements of the PSNI's defensive operations include:

"two specific periods in which there was wholesale cross-checking of police communication systems against a list of journalists' telephone numbers".

Those were unnecessary, disproportionate and, therefore, unlawful. The report identified 24 applications that appear to have been made with the purpose of identifying journalists' sources. The applications relate to nine investigations that involve 1,014 telephone numbers. The deliberate use of covert intelligence to identify journalistic sources, and surveillance activity in and around court buildings, are particularly egregious. Policing can never be above the law. Recognising the gravity of what has been revealed, the Policing Board, on a cross-community basis, has treated this as a section 59 report from the Chief Constable, which is unprecedented and underlines the seriousness of the failings identified.

There is much more to consider in the 200-page report, including lack of disclosure and candour. Public trust, especially among those targeted, has been badly damaged. That trust will only be rebuilt by firm, transparent and time-bound accountability.

The Chief Constable has stated that there are no criminal and no misconduct issues. However, given the gravity of these issues, it is my view that the Policing Board should follow through with a section 60 inquiry under the Police (NI) Act 2000 to fully examine the issues that have arisen in the section 59 report that we have received. I believe that we need the whole truth to restore public confidence in policing. Sinn Féin also believes that implementing Patten's recommendation number 40 on enhanced oversight — that there should be a commissioner for covert law enforcement in the North — would add a layer of scrutiny and could be a practical safeguard against further unlawful practices.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

This past weekend, we celebrated Ulster Day, commemorating 28 September 1912, when almost half a million men and women took an oath opposing an all-Ireland Parliament by signing the Ulster covenant. Ulster Day is a foundational event in the history of Northern Ireland's unionism, symbolising the collective will of so many people to remain part of our United Kingdom. It was fantastic to see so many community events and parades right across Northern Ireland this weekend to commemorate the milestone event in our history.

My constituency of East Antrim put on a wonderful show. In Carrickfergus, I give a special mention to Carrickfergus Historical Re-enactment Group and the Ulster Grenadiers Flute Band, whose efforts ensured a packed day of family fun and historical, educational activities, including a live re-enactment of the signing and a 1912 tea party and parade through the town on Saturday evening. Despite the horrific weather, the crowds were out in numbers to enjoy the events, and it was great to have our party's deputy leader, Michelle McIlveen, and East Belfast MLA David Brooks in Carrickfergus for the occasion.

While we commemorate the events of over a century ago, the underlying principle remains the same, and the unionist community of Northern Ireland remains as loyal to the Union and as firmly opposed to Dublin rule as we were in 1912.

The Ulster covenant remains a symbol of loyalty, resistance and unity. It is a reminder of the sacrifices that were made to preserve our place in the United Kingdom. Even in today's political climate, it serves as a historical anchor that reminds us of the enduring values of democracy, sovereignty and constitutional integrity that we in this party will continue to uphold.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

As Members may already be aware, today marks the beginning of Northern Ireland Environment Week, which is a crucial week of concentrated effort in our environment sector. I was glad to attend Northern Ireland Environment Link's launch event this morning alongside some of my Alliance Party colleagues.

The theme for this year's Environment Week is peatlands, a subject that is of vital significance in Northern Ireland. Our peatlands are immensely valuable for biodiversity, carbon storage, water quality and flood protection, yet those unique habitats have been under immense strain for years owing to factors such as overgrazing, drainage and burning. That is why I was glad to hear that the Alliance Party Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs has successfully published the long-awaited peatland strategy. That long-overdue document sets out five strategic objectives and 26 ambitious actions to restore damaged peatlands and secure a future for those vital ecosystems. It is crucial that we move swiftly from strategy to action, harnessing partnership and collective expertise to ensure delivery on the objectives. Protecting and restoring our peatlands is essential if we are serious about achieving our climate targets and safeguarding our environment for future generations.

I encourage all Members and the public to participate in Environment Week. A variety of public events will take place throughout the week to raise awareness and to promote conservation efforts. They include training sessions, talks, guided walks and volunteering opportunities that focus on specific sites, species and local landscapes.

Before I finish, I sincerely thank everyone involved in the environment sector: our remarkable NGOs, hard-working volunteers and dedicated organisers. Their efforts are greatly appreciated and do not go unnoticed. We should all feel inspired by their commitment and consider how we can contribute more to safeguarding our natural landscape in Northern Ireland. Hopefully, we can match that real and sincere sectoral effort and the public interest in protecting our natural environment with the political will that will be required in the future to produce the much-needed outcomes.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

I will address the findings of the McCullough review. I am afraid to say that the commentary in the media, by political parties and, indeed, by some firms of solicitors — I will not mention any of them — has been misleading and distorted. Let me be clear: the Ulster Unionist Party believes that a free press is a cornerstone of our democracy and that police surveillance powers should be used with great care, in accordance with the law, should be proportionate and should be used only when necessary. There are some lessons to be learned from the McCullough review, but I very much doubt that all those who have spoken so excessively about its findings have read the report. The McCullough review report clearly states that there was no evidence whatsoever of systemic surveillance of journalists by the PSNI.

Mr Kelly said that there were issues with the Police Service's candour. Mr McCullough, an eminent KC, said that he had unfettered access and that everything that he had asked for was given to him. Some things that have been said are simply misleading. There are lessons to be learned from what are called the "defensive operations" used by the police. There is, however, a suggestion that the police were running taps on hundreds of journalists' phones and interrogating them. Perhaps it should not have done this, but the police had numbers that journalists had given to them, which were put in a spreadsheet and checked against officers' call records to see whether they had rung those numbers. The PSNI did not access the journalists' numbers. There is a minor issue about whether the journalists gave the PSNI their numbers for that purpose, but there was no unlawful surveillance of the journalists' phones.

The Alliance Party has called for a public inquiry. In advance of the McCullough review's findings, the Justice Minister said that it would be "premature" to call for a public inquiry, and that we should wait and see what McCullough reported. McCullough reported that there was no systemic surveillance of journalists, but the Alliance Party still calls for a review. It is interesting that two Policing Board members call for a review. My understanding is that the Justice Minister has the power to instigate a public inquiry under the Inquiries Act, so we will see whether she lives up to that power. I will ask her a question later today in that regard.

We have heard from Mr Kelly about freedom of the press. He is from the party that leads on slap actions, the party that tried to take — Mr Kelly himself brought the case — the house from Malachi O'Doherty for publishing an article, and the party that has an army of trolls on social media, which creates a chill effect for everybody. We do not need lessons from Mr Kelly on freedom of the press.

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

Before I get into the meat of my remarks, I reflect on the sad passing of a young man named Oisín Johnston, who was just 18 years of age. He died very suddenly in heartbreaking circumstances. He was the son of Denise Johnston, a councillor of ours in Mid Ulster District Council. The funeral was yesterday. It was extraordinarily sad. It was attended by people from across that community. I know that the family is very appreciative of the words of consolation and condolence that it has received from across politics and society. It reminds us all of the preciousness of life and the very serious issues around young people, their mental health and minding them. It is an extremely sad time for that family.

I will come on to talk about sport, but some of what Mr Burrows said about the McCullough findings was quite remarkable. Trivialising and minimising what was done to the free press is not the way forward in debating these things.

What I want to talk about this afternoon is a terrific weekend for Irish sport. People will have seen what happened at Bethpage State Park Golf Course in New York, where once again, an Irishman — this time Shane Lowry, following in the footsteps of Darren Clarke, Philip Walton and Eamonn Darcy — closed out and secured victory for Europe. I am sure that even the Members from the DUP and TUV were pleased to see Europe win that match.

We also saw, for the very first time, an NFL game happen in "Croker" — Croke Park — in which the Pittsburgh Steelers were victorious. The Steelers owners have their roots in Newry, County Down.

However, the really big sporting event that happened on this island at the weekend was, of course, the Down Ladies' Senior Championship final at Páirc Esler in Newry. It was contested between two terrific teams from my constituency: Bredagh and Carryduff. Those two teams are a remarkable reflection of the growth of Gaelic games and the huge growth of women's Gaelic games, particularly in the county of Down. Many of the people on both panels were on the Down ladies' panel that won the All-Ireland just a couple of years ago.

We had a terrific weekend of sport on the island of Ireland, with Shane Lowry and Rory McIlroy bringing home the Ryder Cup for Europe; the Pittsburgh Steelers and the Minnesota Vikings showing us their wares in Croke Park; and, most importantly, two teams from my constituency — Bredagh and Carryduff — producing a terrific display while competing for the Down Ladies' Senior Championship. The latter is huge testimony to the growth of Gaelic games in the constituency and Belfast generally. We are very proud of them. The winners on this occasion were Bredagh, but it is very clear that we have great and growing teams from across the constituency. I am delighted to see it.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Before I call Jemma Dolan, I remind Members that Members' statements are for an issue, not a series of issues.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I speak today about the future of emergency general surgery at the South West Acute Hospital (SWAH) in Enniskillen and the paused consultation on the permanent removal of the service. SWAH is a lifeline for people in Fermanagh and west Tyrone. Its location was chosen to ensure that rural communities in the west could access high-quality healthcare without having to travel unreasonable distances. The removal of emergency general surgery has created real fear and uncertainty. People are, rightly, concerned about patient safety, travel times and whether our hospital is being slowly stripped back.

The current consultation cannot be seen as the end of the story. We need the Western Health and Social Care Trust to publish a clear, ambitious and deliverable vision plan for SWAH, a plan that reassures staff, patients and the wider community that the hospital has a sustainable future at the heart of our health service.

That vision must set out how the SWAH can be developed to meet the needs of our population in the years ahead, including investing in cross-border services.

The people of the west deserve the same commitment and investment as any other part of the North. Our health system must not leave rural communities behind. The Western Trust has a duty to listen to local people's voices and show leadership by producing a plan that gives confidence in the long-term future of the SWAH.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

I rise to congratulate Coleraine's first professional Irish boxing champion, Matty "Bam Bam" Boreland. Matty's remarkable victory at Windsor Park is a source of great pride for the entire Coleraine community. In a fierce and closely contested bout, the reigning champion, Rudy Farrell, was unable to continue into the seventh round. In the sixth round, Matty began landing powerful combinations that ultimately turned the tide. His precision and power earned him a crucial knockdown and a dominant finish, thereby sealing his place in Coleraine's sporting history to earn the first Irish superbantamweight title to be brought back to the town.

Matty is a down-to-earth young man whose dedication, discipline and passion for his sport began at the Golden Gloves club in the town under coach Michael Fleming. Matty has become a role model for the aspiring athletes in our area, showing what can be achieved through hard work and dedication. The title was also a first for former world champion and coach Ryan Burnett, as Matty became the first boxer whom he has coached to a title. Theirs is an amazing combination, and long may it continue.

As Matty paraded his newly won belt in front of the Coleraine faithful at the game against Glentoran, it was a joy to watch the supporters show their appreciation for their new champion. We look forward to celebrating many more of Matty's successes in future and, who knows, maybe a celebration or two for Coleraine Football Club as well. On behalf of the people of Coleraine, I extend congratulations to Matty on his outstanding achievement.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Tarraingíodh siar na himeachtaí dlí in aghaidh Liam Óig Uí Annaidh, feibh is cóir. Bhí Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh os comhair na cúirte in Westminster arís an tseachtain seo caite, ar chúiseamh a cuireadh go héagórach ina choinne. Arís eile, sheas Feisirí de chuid Shinn Féin i gcuideachta na gcéadta eile taobh amuigh den chúirt le tacaíocht a thabhairt do Liam Óg. Theip ar ionsaí polaitiúil na Breataine ar Kneecap mar ghuth i gcoinne an chinedhíothaithe.

Tugadh triúr ball den ghluaiseacht Baghcat, Dífheistiú agus Smachtbhannaí (BDS) os comhair na cúirte an tseachtain seo caite i mBéal Feirste as damáiste coiriúil ó tharla iad a bheith ag agóid i gcoinne earraí Iosraelacha agus na siopaí a dhíolann iad. Sin ceartas na Breataine agaibh, coir a dhéanamh den agóid i gcoinne cinedhíothú.

Rinneadh ionsaí arís ar Global Sumud Flotilla an tseachtain seo caite, agus tuairiscíodh gur buamáladh 11 cheann de na longa a bhí ag iompar cabhrach, cabhair a bhfuil géarghá léi in Gaza. Ba é freagra na Breataine ná "aitheantas" a tabhairt do stát na Palaistíne ar mhaithe le:

“seans na síochána agus réiteach an dá stát a choinneáil beo”.

Tá cinedhíothú ar obair le dhá bhliain anuas. Tá i bhfad níos mó ná aitheantas stáit de dhíth. Ba chóir don Bhreatain tacú le feachtas BDS ar a laghad, in áit coir a dhéanamh de. Ba chóir don Bhreatain a bheith diongbháilte i dtaca le lucht déanta an chinedhíothaithe a thabhairt chun cuntais, gan bheith comhpháirteach ann. Mar a dúirt Liam Óg agus é ag labhairt leis na meáin agus lena lucht tacaíochta i ndiaidh an cháis:

“má tá aon duine ar an phláinéad ciontach i sceimhlitheoireacht, is é stát na Breataine é. Saoirse don Phalaistín”.

Cé go bhfuil teip ar Rialtas na Breataine maidir lena ndualgas morálta cur i gcoinne an éagóra uafásaí seo, is féidir linn ról a imirt. Ba mhaith liom aird a tharraingt ar an fheachtas Troscadh ar son na Córa agus an iarracht is déanaí acu Troid i gcoinne Mhaoinitheoirí an Chinedhíothaithe, troscadh 24 uair an chloig a bheidh ann go náisiúnta an 10 Deireadh Fómhair, ag comóradh dhá bhliain ó na hionsaithe is déanaí, agus a mbeidh agóidí lena linn ag oifigí na ndaoine a éascaíonn an cinedhíothú seo. Go dtí seo, tá breis is €200 míle bailithe ag Troscadh ar son na Córa do UNRWA.

[Translation: Legal proceedings against Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh have rightly been dropped. Last week, Liam Óg Ó hAnnaidh was once again before the courts in Westminster, on a charge that was unjustly placed against him. Sinn Féin MPs, once again, stood with hundreds of others outside the court in solidarity with Liam Óg. The British state’s political assault on Kneecap as a voice against genocide has failed. Last week in Belfast, three members of the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement were brought before the courts in Belfast on criminal damage charges for protesting Israeli goods and stores that supply them. This is what British justice looks like: attempts to criminalise those who speak up and protest a genocide. The Global Sumud Flotilla was attacked again last week, it is reported that 11 of the ships carrying much needed aid to Gaza were bombed. The British response was to “recognise” the Palestinian state in an effort to: “keep alive the possibility of peace and a two-state solution”. We are two years into a genocide. State recognition falls far short of what is needed. What is really needed is that Britain should join the BDS campaign, not criminalise it; Britain should be resolute in holding the perpetrators of genocide to account, not be complicit in it. As Liam Óg said when addressing the media and supporters after the case: “If anyone on this planet is guilty of terrorism, it’s the British state. Free Palestine.” While the British Government are failing in their moral duty to oppose this appalling injustice, we can play our part. I want to highlight the Hunger for Justice campaign and its most recent endeavour Fight the Financiers of Genocide, a 24-hour nationally organised fast on the 10 October, marking two years of the most recent attacks with protests at the offices of those who are facilitating this genocide. To date, Hunger for Justice has raised over €200k for UNRWA.]

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I begin by placing on record my deepest sympathy to the family of Ian Milne, who passed away suddenly just yesterday. Ian was a big character who often went above and beyond. He was known across the Chamber, and he will certainly be missed. Our thoughts and prayers are with his sons Andrew and Stuart.

Last week, the House stooped to a new low. The Alliance Party helped and voted to remove the word "innocent" from a DUP motion rejecting amnesty for terrorists. We all know that Sinn Féin and Alliance are like Siamese twins when it comes to voting in this Building. However, to side with convicted bomber Kelly's definition of a victim really is a new low, and for Naomi Long, the Justice Minister, to have doubled down on that definition on the radio really does beggar belief.

Does the Alliance Party really believe that a paramilitary bomber, regardless of their creed, is in some way to be equated with an innocent victim of terrorism across Northern Ireland? If we follow its logic to its natural conclusion, we find that it really is a sad indictment of how far that party has travelled. No longer is it the party of the middle road but a party that is prepared to put the victim maker on an equal footing with the innocent victim.

Banbridge is a major town in my constituency. In 1982, the Provisional IRA detonated a no-warning car bomb there. It killed 11-year-old Alan McCrum. Are we in some way to believe that the man or woman who planted the bomb is equal to young Alan McCrum? Are the 10 victims of Kingsmills, Protestant men who were lined up on a road in south Armagh and killed because of their religion, in some way to be equated with the very men who shot them? What about 22-year-old Mary Travers, who was murdered by the Provisional IRA as she left Mass with her family? Are we in some way to believe that the Alliance Party, in supporting Gerry Kelly's amendment —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

— believes that that is in some way on an equal footing?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Shame.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Last week, Denmark had to consider declaring a state of emergency as drones closed airspace and airports across the country, causing millions of kroner worth of disruption. In Sweden, drones flew over the Karlskrona naval base. In Norway, drones interrupted flights at Bardufoss and Oslo. Cyberattacks have been occurring across the continent, with Jaguar Land Rover having to receive a £1·5 billion loan to stop vital supply chain suppliers going bust. Many other companies have been targeted and quietly decided to pay a ransom in Bitcoin to cyberterrorists, many of whom are based in St Petersburg, rather than admit that they have lost control of their systems.

Factories in several places across Europe, including in our nation, have been subject to arson attacks. Airport check-ins, including in Dublin, Berlin and Heathrow, have been cyberattacked with malware. Our media point to the suspicious activity of the Russian research ship Yantar, which has been visiting nodes of key cables off our coasts as well as the coasts of Ireland and Norway over the past few months. The recent elections in Moldova have been plagued by interference, with fake news and false flag, social media and tear-gas attacks at polling stations and outright attempts to ballot-rig being played out. Nightly, hundreds of drone and air attacks are made against Ukraine. Those attacks are not against military targets but are designed to undermine the civilian population and terrorise.

The common denominator is Russia, which is playing its hybrid warfare card, trying to impose its will on Europe and to push Putin's desire of nationalistic totalitarianism everywhere. Europe's leaders, or nearly all its leaders, are standing firm against that onslaught. However, there are a few exceptions: Viktor Orbán for one; the AfD in Germany; Slovakia; and, believe it or not, Sinn Féin's candidate for the forthcoming Irish presidency, Catherine Connolly.

She recently remarked:

"NATO has played a despicable role in moving forward to the border and engaging in warmongering"

towards Russia. She also compared Germany's move to increase its defence spending as something akin to the 1930s and the rise of Hitler. That is from somebody who visited President Assad's Syria in 2018 at the height of his murderous campaign. In light of what is happening across Europe, Lenin's phrases of "useful idiot" and "fellow traveller" very clearly come to mind. While it is up to the Irish people to decide their next president, Ireland and Europe deserve better than that apologist for totalitarianism.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I rise to address a concerning issue that has, understandably, provoked anger and frustration in the local community and was, rightly, highlighted at the weekend by former football manager David Jeffrey MBE in the 'Belfast Telegraph': the message that UEFA, the governing body of European football, sent out by not punishing sectarian abuse at a recent UEFA Conference League fixture in Dublin between Shelbourne and Linfield Football Club.

During that game at Tolka Park, Linfield's Matthew Fitzpatrick, who is a former Gaelic footballer at inter-county level for Antrim, was subjected to chants branding him an "Orange b—". That vile, offensive abuse was broadcast across the world. The Linfield manager, David Healy, was subject to similar abuse. The situation was so serious that the BBC commentators felt compelled to issue on-air apologies to viewers, yet UEFA has chosen to do nothing — nothing to sanction Shelbourne Football Club and nothing to send a message that such behaviour is unacceptable and wrong. By contrast, earlier this summer, Linfield found themselves sanctioned by UEFA after some of their fans engaged in sectarian chanting. The club acted swiftly to condemn those responsible and, understandably, faced the consequences. The question that we must ask today is this: why is it one rule for one club and another rule for Shelbourne? Why is it that, when players and supporters from one background, or perceived background, are targeted with hateful sectarian abuse, UEFA seems to turn a blind eye?

It also raises very important questions about the monitoring of such matches. Let us be clear: sectarian abuse is sectarian abuse, and it is wrong, whether it is directed at Catholics, Protestants or any other group or race. There can be no hierarchy of hatred and no acceptable targets. The principle of equality rightly demands that all abuse be treated with the same seriousness, no matter what direction it comes from. UEFA has sent out a very dangerous and shameful message that Protestants, or those perceived to be Protestant, are somehow fair game. That cannot be tolerated. It is unacceptable, undermines confidence in football governance and deepens divisions across our communities.

UEFA, rightly and understandably, talks about the Respect campaign, but, unfortunately, this incident reminds us of the need to do much better. There must be respect for all cultures and backgrounds. I call on UEFA to urgently review the matter, hold Shelbourne to the same standards as any other football club across the world and send out a clear and unambiguous message that sectarian abuse, in all its forms, is wrong and will be punished.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

You have a couple of minutes, Mr Carroll.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Bhí mé féin, agus mo chlann, ar an mhórshiúl sin Cearta an tseachtain seo caite. Bhí muid ann leis na mílte eile ar na sráideanna agus muid "dearg le fearg".

Fair play do na daoine sin a chuir an léirsiú ar cois. Tháinig pobal na Gaeilge le chéile ó gach aon chearn den tír. Bhí daoine feargach. Is é rud atá siad feargach. Tá siad feargach faoin easpa maoinithe don teanga. Tá Gaeilgeoirí ó Thuaidh go fóill ag fanacht le stráitéis. Tá siad feargach faoin ghéarchéim sa Ghaeltacht agus an ghéarchéim thithíochta go háirithe. Tá siad feargach faoin easpa measa ar an Ghaeloideachas. Tá an Roinn Oideachais ó Thuaidh ag caitheamh go maslach leis an Ghaeloideachas. Agus tá siad feargach faoi easpa Cearta teanga.

Caithfidh pobal na Gaeilge ó Thuaidh a bheith buartha faoin DUP go fóill. Tá muid sa bhliain 2025 agus tá crosadh go fóill ag an DUP: maidir leis an Choimisinéir, maidir leis an méid atá san Acht, tá crosadh ag an DUP go fóill. Ba mhaith leis an DUP crosadh a chur ar chomharthaí dátheangacha in Grand Central Station fosta.

Tá pobal na Gaeilge tinn tuirseach de Rialtas ó Dheas nach gcaitheann pingin rua leis an Ghaeilge. Agus tá siad tinn tuirseach den DUP ag déanamh ionsaí ar an teanga. Ná géilligí don DUP.

Ach ní leis an DUP amháin a bhaineann. Tá ceisteanna le freagairt ag Airí de chuid Shinn Féin. Tá fadhbanna le heaspa spásanna agus easpa maoinithe i nGaelscoileanna iarthar Bhéal Feirste. Sin ceist mhór ar an Aire Airgeadais agus ar an Chéad-Aire: cad é atá sibh a dhéanamh faoi sin?

Tá súil agam go n-éistfidh Stormont leis na mílte a bhí ar na sráideanna i mBaile Átha Cliath ar an mhórshiúl sin Cearta.

Executive Committee Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I call the Minister of Education to move the Further Consideration Stage of the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill.

Moved. — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).]

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Members will have a copy of the Marshalled List of Amendments detailing the order for consideration. The amendments have been grouped for debate in the provisional grouping of amendments selected list. There are two groups of amendments, and we will debate the amendments in each group in turn. The first debate will be on amendment Nos 1, 5 and 7 to 12, which deal with the monitoring and enforcement of guidelines. The second debate will be on amendment Nos 2, 3, 4 and 6, which deal with the content of the guidelines. I remind Members who intend to speak during the debates on the two groups of amendments that they should address all the amendments in each group on which they wish to comment. Once the debate on each group is completed, any further amendments in the group will be formally moved as we go through the Bill, and the Question on each will be put without further debate.

Members should note that a number of the Minister's amendments remove amendments made at Consideration Stage and offer alternatives at different places in the Bill. Specifically, amendment Nos 1 and 11, amendment Nos 3 and 4 and amendment Nos 5 and 12 are linked. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Clause 1 (Guidelines as to policies on school uniforms)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We now come to the first group of amendments for debate. With amendment No 1, it will be convenient to debate amendment No 5 and amendment Nos 7 to 12. I call the Minister of Education to move amendment No 1 and to address the other amendments in the group.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I beg to move amendment No 1:

In page 2, line 13, leave out subsection (6).

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 5: In clause 5, page 3, leave out clause 5. — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).]

No 7: I clause 8, page 4, line 31, leave out "as follows to a manager of a school" and insert "to a manager of a school as follows". — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).]

No 8: In clause 8, page 4, line 36, after "to" insert "undue". — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).]

No 9: In clause 8, page 5, line 9, at end insert—

"(iii) a report of an investigation relating to the school if sent to the Department under section 43 of the Public Services Ombudsman Act (Northern Ireland) 2016." — [Mr Mathison.]

No 10: In clause 8, page 5, line 34, leave out from "to" to end of line 35 and insert—

"under this section, the Department must publish the text of them within 3 months of giving them." — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).]

No 11: New Clause

After clause 14 insert—

"Chapter 3

LAYING AND REPORTING FORMALITIES

Laying of guidelines

14A. Guidelines under Chapter 1 must be laid before the Assembly by the Department of Education as soon as practicable after issuing or reissuing them." — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).]

No 12: New Clause

After clause 14 insert—

"Reporting on guidelines and costs

14B.—(1) At least once every 3 years, the Department of Education must publish a report—

(a) setting out the Department’s plans for—

(i) reviewing (and revising) guidelines under Chapter 1, and

(ii) guidelines under Chapter 1 to include provision, or to have no or altered provision, as to capping of expense, and

(b) containing broader information in accordance with the following subsections.

(2) The report must—

(a) summarise—

(i) as the Department’s best estimates, the typical or average costs of school uniforms and individual pieces of such uniforms, and

(ii) so far as known to the Department, the various factors contributing to such costs rising, remaining unchanged or becoming lower, and

(b) the Department’s assessment of the impact of provision as to capping of expense for the time being included in guidelines under Chapter 1.

(3) The report must, if no provision as to capping of expense is for the time being included in guidelines under Chapter 1, state the Department’s explanation for this.

(4) The report may reflect the distinctions, as appearing to the Department, between uniforms worn—

(a) at particular types or descriptions of schools, or

(b) by pupils—

(i) in particular age or year groups, or

(ii) receiving primary education or secondary education as construed in accordance with Article 2(2) of the Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986." — [Mr Givan (The Minister of Education).]

We begin Further Consideration Stage of the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill with the amendments voted through at Consideration Stage now forming part of the Bill. I thank Members for their engagement with the legislation throughout the process so far and record my thanks to the Office of Legislative Counsel for the pace and professionalism with which its staff have again worked to enable amendments to be tabled for Further Consideration Stage.

I will speak to the amendments in this group, but let me briefly preface that with the context of why I have tabled the 11 technical amendments that we debate today. I have been clear about two points throughout the process. The first is that the reason for introducing this legislation is to address the affordability of school uniforms for parents and families who, I know, struggle with the cost of living. The Bill contains many more powers than those recognised by the media coverage reflecting some Members' comments following Consideration Stage. Let me be clear that the Bill has the power to make a difference.

The second point that I have consistently made is that the legislation that we make in the House needs to be excellent in how it is worded and structured to deliver the various intentions towards an overall resulting effect. As a Minister, I take seriously my duty to ensure that we make sound, accessible and workable legislation in all respects. Therefore, while I might have done things differently, I fully respect the decisions of the House in voting through 12 amendments at Consideration Stage. However, I considered it my duty to look at the provisions in the Bill as amended and have therefore taken a fresh look at how those amended provisions will be capable of being read and applied in practice. To make a difference for parents, the guidelines that will stem from the Bill must be workable for our schools, so, today, I propose a number of technical amendments that ensure that the legislation is left in the best shape that it can be. As well as the technicalities of my amendments, they are designed to ensure that positive differences can be made for families. I am sure that Members will agree that sound and workable legislation is vital to supporting families, and I trust that Members will support the technical amendments that I have brought to the House at Further Consideration Stage on the advice of my officials, including those with expertise in legislative drafting.

How the Bill flows is important, as are the words that it uses to achieve the policy intention that Members voted through. I reassure Members that the changes that will be made by the amendments that I have tabled, whether to language, style or structure, are designed to make the best legislation that the Assembly can produce. In all of this, I do not seek at all to undermine the intentions behind the relevant amendments that were made at Consideration Stage. Rather, I seek to make them effective.

Amendment No 1 is necessary in order to allow amendment No 11 to move the requirement to lay guidelines before the Assembly to a new chapter dedicated to laying and reporting. Amendment No 1 lays the necessary groundwork for removing the requirement to lay the guidelines from where it currently sits in the Bill. To be absolutely clear, the requirement to lay the guidelines in the Assembly remains. My amendments give it greater prominence in a new chapter and by way of an independent clause. I trust that there is nothing in that to which Members will object.

Amendment No 11 makes minor adjustments to the language used in order to provide legal clarity, by, for example, referring to the chapter rather than to the section, given the moving of the provision under amendment No 1, but the new clause still requires the Department of Education to lay the school uniform guidelines before the Assembly. The amendment also extends the reference to when guidelines are issued in order to recognise the subtle distinction between when they are issued and when they are reissued. Again, in order to have clear legislation, I trust that there is nothing in there to which Members will object.

Amendment No 5 serves a similar purpose to amendment No 1 for the reporting clause that was voted in at Consideration Stage. It needs to be moved from its current location in clause 5 in order to allow amendment No 12 to place it in the proposed new chapter on laying and reporting. It will thus be a separate clause in that new chapter. The House will note in amendment No 12 some changes in language, which are to provide legal clarity while giving effect to the policy intent set out at Consideration Stage. To be clear, there is no attempt in amendment No 12 to dilute the impact of decisions that were taken at Consideration Stage. Under the amendment, the Department of Education must still publish a report:

"At least once every 3 years",

and the clock will begin once the Bill obtains Royal Assent. The requirement to set out the Department's plans to review and revise guidelines is still explicit. The requirement to report on a cap or to provide the reasons why if no cap is in place is still explicit. Albeit in a different place, the requirement for the report to set out plans to include provision or an explanation of why no provision or an altered provision for a cap remains. That was previously covered in clause 5(1)(c)(ii) after Consideration Stage.

I understand that some Members have concerns about what the Department's report will cover, given any changes in language that are made. I assure the House that any difference in terminology is to provide legal clarity and not to reduce reporting requirements. The departmental report has to focus on the Bill's provisions and impact, which means the impact that it is having on the cost of school uniforms. The term "best estimates" needs to be read against the remainder of that new subsection, as "best estimates" simply means departmental officials utilising the information available on school uniform costs and the typical or average cost of uniforms either in total or for individual items. That is explicit in the wording of the amendment. In real-world terms, using the Department's "best estimates" instead of its "assessment" makes no difference other than to be more consistent with wording used in legal drafting.

My officials will collect and analyse school-level data in order to provide a report every three years. The terms "mean costs" and "median costs" now read as "typical or average costs", with greater clarity being provided that the report can differentiate between the cost of a uniform for different types of schools or year groups. That will allow for a more meaningful report. As I said at Consideration Stage, we know that costs at post-primary level are normally higher than at primary level. Being clear in the Bill that the Department's report can look at the average cost of a primary-school uniform or uniform items, and separately at the average cost of a post-primary-school uniform or uniform items, provides for much more meaningful information for everyone but especially for parents. The requirement for the Department to report on the various factors contributing to such costs remains but with greater detail, in that the amendment states that the factors can relate to increased costs, static costs or decreased costs, insofar as the contributory factors are known to the Department. The slightly different wording replaces the wording stating that it is the Department's "assessment" of the contributory factors that will be included in the report. Nothing will be lost by making amendment No 12. Rather, the amendment simply uses language that is consistent with that already used in the Bill and provides greater legal clarity.

Amendment No 7 is a minor correction that moves the words "as follows" to the same place in the sentence as in clause 8(1) and 8(2). It is a very straightforward matter that, again, I trust no one will find difficulty with.

The House will recognise amendment No 8. It is the amendment that I tabled at Consideration Stage but that was mutually exclusive with a Committee amendment that was agreed to and, therefore, could not be called. I will reiterate my reasons for tabling this relatively minor amendment. Simply put, it provides consistency with the materiality consideration in clause 8(1). It also seeks to ensure balance for pupils and schools. I assure Members that the amendment is not there to seek to avoid giving a direction; it is only to enable schools to operate their day-to-day running and discipline policies effectively.

Members, I am sure, will all have heard of instances where schools are trying to manage pupil behaviour that may manifest in rebellion against school rules, including uniform policies. It is important that we take every step to allow schools to manage such situations appropriately. However, it is equally important that behaviours, such as a school not allowing a pupil to participate in PE or games because they do not have the right black leggings, for example, are not permitted to go unchecked. I understand that some Members have questioned the need for this amendment, given that clause 8(2) remains a "may" provision rather than a "must". However, to be clear, where direction is needed, it will be given regardless of whether the provision is "must" or "may".

Amendment No 8 seeks only to ensure that cases raised to be considered for direction relate to actual issues with affording or tolerating — with regard to comfort, practicality and sensory issues, for example — the uniform that is required. It seeks to protect pupils and schools in allowing genuine matters of running the school to be addressed by that school in the context of uniform, whilst ensuring that pupils are not prevented from taking part in any aspect of school life due to expensive or rigidly applied uniform requirements that do not take account of the practical realities for a pupil or their family. Including the parameter of the word "undue" with regard to pupil discipline or participatory disadvantage is a small but important change, and I hope that the House will support it in the interest of balance.

Amendment No 9, which has been tabled by Nick Mathison, seeks to make explicit reference to the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman (NIPSO) as a source of evidence for the Department in assessing whether a direction is needed, and does not cause me particular concern. I do not think that it is needed; however, I do not intend to oppose it. The Education Committee wrote to me asking me to outline how the Bill works with the role of NIPSO on complaints, and how I envisage the complaints procedure in clause 8 working.

Whilst I do not intend to digress beyond the focus of Further Consideration Stage, in considering amendment No 9, I trust that any concerns about the visibility of NIPSO as a complaints handler are now addressed. To be clear, there is nothing in the Bill, either as introduced or as amended at Consideration Stage, that I consider creates a tension with the role of NIPSO. That role is enshrined in other existing legislation and does not benefit from being repeated in this Bill. Amendment No 9 does not do that; rather, it highlights that a NIPSO report can also be a source of information when the Department is making an assessment about whether to give a direction. My assessment is that that was always going to be the case, which is why I stated that I do not think the amendment is necessary. However, I have also stated that I do not intend to oppose its inclusion.

Amendment No 10 simply tidies language relating to the requirement that the Department must publish directions within three months of giving them. The wording in this amendment —

"must publish the text of them"

— relates to the full text of the direction, as it was made explicit at Consideration Stage that that is the will of the House. The fact that I do not support the naming and shaming of schools in that way is not relevant to the wording of amendment No 10, and I trust that the House will support the tidying up of the language that it delivers.

I have spoken to amendment Nos 11 and 12 in relation to amendment Nos 1 and 5, which I remind Members leave provisions relating to the laying and reporting out of their current place in the Bill, and thus allow for amendment Nos 11 and 12 to be placed in a new chapter, with new clauses, for clarity and flow.

Each amendment that I have tabled has been tabled in good faith to ensure that the language and structure, on the location of provisions and the overall style of the Bill, support us in making good legislation. I trust that Members will enter the debate in the same spirit of working towards that common goal — a common goal that will ultimately benefit parents who are struggling with the cost of school uniforms.

Nick Mathison (Alliance, Strangford)

I will speak first in my capacity as Chair of the Education Committee on the group 1 amendments for Further Consideration Stage of the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill. As the Minister set out, group 1 addresses the monitoring and enforcement of guidelines and includes the introduction of some new clauses.

The Committee received notice of the Department's amendments just before its meeting on Wednesday. It did not take a briefing on them, given the demands of previously scheduled business. However, my understanding is that officials have assisted individual members in the meantime, and I thank officials for engaging, often at short notice, with me and my party colleagues on queries about the amendments tabled by the Minister and the Department. There is, therefore, no agreed Committee position on the amendments, but I can comment on some of them to the extent that they relate to the Committee's processes up to this point and are intended, as the Minister set out, to tidy up and implement the amendments made at Consideration Stage. I will speak to them briefly unless there is any need for more detailed comment.

Amendment No 1, along with amendment No 11, deletes and replaces the Committee-led requirement for guidelines to be laid in the Assembly at a more appropriate location in the Bill. As the Minister set out, it seems to me that it makes no material change to the effect of the original amendment. I can see no reason that any Committee member would feel the need to object to it.

Amendment No 5 proposes to delete clause 5 as amended. The content of that is now imported via amendment No 12 through a new clause. That requires some discussion from the Committee's perspective. The Minister set out the detail of why he has chosen to table the amendment regarding the new clause and the new location. I was going to refer to some correspondence that the Minister had sent the Committee on that point, but, at this stage, that is probably overkill. Committee members will, I think, recognise the key elements of their amendment, which was made at Consideration Stage, but it will be for individual Members to decide whether they are content with the newly worded clause. I might speak to some of those issues as an Alliance Member later.

Amendment No 7 is a minor textual amendment so that the language at clause 8(1) and (2) scans similarly. Again, I see no issues arising from a Committee perspective.

Amendment No 8 reruns a ministerial amendment that was not put to a vote at Consideration Stage, because it was deemed to be mutually exclusive to the amendment that was passed. It inserts the word "undue" on the grounds of giving legal balance to the expectations around the policing of school uniform policies. I quote directly from the Minister's correspondence to the Committee on that:

"The amendment simply places a consistent parameter in clause 8(2) that pupil discipline and participatory disadvantage should not be undue, the parameter being consistent with the materiality parameter already set out in clause 8(1). I think this is important to both protect pupils from disadvantage and allow schools to operate their discipline policy appropriately."

Those were the Minister's comments in his letter to the Committee.

In many of our meetings at Committee Stage, the Committee was very clear that it did not want to see the disproportionate disciplining of pupils on the basis of factors that are beyond their control, particularly for reasons related to the affordability of uniforms. The Committee was similarly concerned about exclusion, attendance at school and participatory disadvantage being linked to any breach of school uniform policy, particularly if it were on the grounds of affordability. I will speak further to that amendment in my capacity as an Alliance Member in due course, but, at this stage, I ask on the Committee's behalf whether the Minister — he referenced this, but I ask for a little more specifically — can assure me that his planned guidelines will clearly and unequivocally inhibit schools from imposing participatory disadvantage in relation to uniform policy, as I think that that will impact on whether Members are content with the insertion of "undue". I will reserve my remarks on that to my contribution as a private Member later, when I will cover my views on that.

Amendment No 9 has been tabled in my name. It would delineate and give legal clarity to the respective complaints jurisdictions of the Department and the Northern Ireland Public Services Ombudsman (NIPSO). The Committee had some back and forth on that with NIPSO, but we were unable to reach any clear resolution on a suitable amendment by the time that we reached Consideration Stage.

The Minister mentioned that the Committee wrote to him directly seeking a range of assurances on NIPSO's role. I note that the Minister has made it clear that he sees no conflict with the Bill and the arrangements already set out in legislation. However, with regard to amendment No 9, which I will speak to in a personal capacity a little later, there was a possible oversight in NIPSO's not being included as a source of evidence that the Department could use when making a decision on issuing a direction. I will speak to that later.

Amendment No 10 deletes and inserts text about the publication of directions. The Minister proposes that it make no substantive change to the intention of the Committee's amendment. Again, I will quote from the Minister's letter to the Committee:

"This is merely to tidy the language used in the Consideration Stage amendment. The Department must still publish the full text of the direction within three months of it being given."

I will speak to that briefly from the Committee's perspective, because it was clear at Committee Stage and at Consideration Stage — not unanimously but as the ultimate will of the Assembly — that it was considered appropriate that schools be named when there has been a material breach and that that should be published. The Minister referenced that, but I will say this just so that Committee members can have clarity: amendment No 10 will still require a school to be named. It will not just be the text of a direction that is published in some sort of vacuum but the individual school will be named. Members have been clear at Committee that, when there has been a material breach of the guidelines that the Department has published, naming really should be at the end of a process of trying to resolve that but, if a school remains wedded to the notion that it wants to breach those guidelines, naming is appropriate. Again, it was agreed by and large, with the exception of DUP members on the Committee, that that was the direction of travel. Other Members can speak to that.

The final amendment in the group, amendment No 12, deals in one place with the reporting on guidelines and costs. I am aware that it is convention for the Department to tidy up amendments at Further Consideration Stage and that that should be done without malice to the intention of any amendments made at Consideration Stage. The Minister set out that that has been his approach. I am open to the arguments of any of my colleagues on the amendment. However, as I set out when referring to amendment No 5, it appears to me that the expectation has been met on this occasion. The Minister has addressed specifically the use of the phrase "best estimates" in the new clause, but he can perhaps provide further clarity on it. I would like to be clear that we will not be in the space of looking at guesswork or anecdotal evidence. He has referenced utilising school-level data, so I want to have it clearly on the record that that is what we will deal with in the report. While best estimates of the costs of school uniforms may produce a general picture, it would be helpful if could have assurances that the report that is set out in the duties in amendment No 12 will capture whether there are consistent outliers and schools that consistently arrive at higher-costing uniforms in comparison with other schools that are able to deliver them for a much cheaper cost. I just want to make sure that, if there are outliers, that is captured in the report. Perhaps the Minister can speak to that and provide clarity on those Committee concerns about the need for accountability.

I will now speak to the group 1 amendments in my capacity as an individual Member and as an Alliance education spokesperson. I will pick up on the issues with amendment Nos 5 and 12, which have been highlighted. As I mentioned, they are the final outworkings of the Committee amendment that was concerned exclusively with accountability. There has been scepticism — there is no point trying to gloss over that — about what the Bill's ultimate impact will be. Given those concerns, Committee members and I, as the individual member who brought the original amendment forward, were clear that accountability needed to be in the Bill. I have sought assurances in my capacity as Chair on best estimates and the kind of data that would be used. I hope that we can get that information. However, I want to be clear that, given that there is uncertainty about what will be in the guidelines — I will not rehearse those arguments today — we need a mechanism that delivers clear accountability. The Bill has to deliver on costs for parents, so amendment No 12 is critical. I hope that the assurances from the Minister will go far enough. I have no desire to vote down amendments that have been drafted to tidy up wording or relocate an amendment. However, the key is that it delivers genuine accountability. I hope that, in his winding-up speech, the Minister can speak to that again.

I am content that I covered most of the other amendments in the group in the remarks that I made as Chair of the Committee, but I will revisit amendment No 8, which will potentially insert the word "undue" into clause 8(2), relating to "disciplinary measures or participatory disadvantages". I disagree with the Minister's remarks on that point. I understand the thinking behind it, which is to avoid the Department getting embroiled in the minutiae of the day-to-day running of schools — nobody wants departmental officials to be caught up in that — but I emphasise the importance of its being a "may" power and the Minister's assurances that, if directions are needed, they will be given. If that is the case, the use of the word "undue" just adds another layer and, potentially, another barrier to directions being issued. The Department can consider internally whether the participatory disadvantage is "undue", and I am reluctant to see another hurdle to be got over before the Department may intervene on participatory disadvantage or disciplinary measures. I am not, therefore, minded to support the amendment, but I will listen carefully to the Minister's winding-up speech to hear whether he says any more to allay those concerns.

I tabled amendment No 9 as a private Member. It reflects concerns brought to the Committee by NIPSO that clause 8 is not clear enough on NIPSO's role and could cause confusion for parents. I do not pretend that the amendment addresses all NIPSO's concerns. NIPSO has engaged with the Department through correspondence, and there appears to be a difference of opinion on the extent to which the Bill interacts with NIPSO's powers. The amendment at least clarifies that evidence provided by NIPSO to the Department in a report is one of the types of evidence that the Department is permitted to consider when deciding whether to issue a direction. My concern is that the Bill as drafted and as amended at Consideration Stage could be interpreted as not permitting the Department to use a report from NIPSO to reach a decision on direction, and that seemed to be a significant oversight. I hope that Members can support amendment No 9 on that basis.

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

I have been called to speak a lot earlier than I had expected, so I will gather myself.

We welcome the Bill's progress. We all understand the absolute need for it in our community and for our constituents. They face crippling school uniform costs, and we need to do all that we can to address that issue and make life easier for people. We are a little concerned, however, that the Bill that we are considering today, compared with the Bill as it was at the start of its journey, is weaker and a little hollowed out. A stronger, more modern framework could have been put in place.

The first group of amendments relates to oversight and transparency. Those are not just woolly words; they are essential if the Bill is to make the difference in the real world that we want to see. Too often, parents are left in the dark, not knowing how uniform costs in their schools are made up or how they compare with those of other schools. They do not know whether the Department has even looked at affordability in any serious way. When schools set out policies that burden families, there is little confidence that the Department will intervene. As we have rehearsed in previous debates, that lack of oversight leads to blazers costing over £100, jumpers costing £40 and PE kits running to over £70. Those are the prices per child. For families with a number of children at school, the costs are massive. That is why the reporting duties, with independent oversight and published directions, really matter. They shine a light on practices that would otherwise remain hidden. They put pressure on schools and the Department to act fairly and give parents confidence that their concerns are not just filed away in a drawer.

Amendment No 1 would remove subsection (6) of clause 1, which requires the Department to consider the affordability of uniform and PE clothing when drafting guidelines. We feel that taking that subsection out would narrow the Bill from the start. In its place, the Minister has proposed amendment No 11, which alters the way in which the Department's report would be laid before the Assembly. While that change seems small, it softens, in effect, the accountability mechanisms in the Bill, so we have difficulty with it. Affordability, transparency and accountability are not optional extras.

Amendment No 8 is a helpful amendment, providing a degree of flexibility where it is needed. It will ensure that the Department's enforcement powers applied only where pupils are subjected to undue disciplinary disadvantage. Again, we are concerned that that narrows the scope. It protects pupils from unfair or disproportionate sanctions because of uniform costs, while recognising that schools must retain the right to enforce reasonable uniform rules. We would like to see that balance.

Amendment No 9 adds an additional trigger for departmental intervention, allowing the Department to act if the ombudsman reports on a school policy under section 43 of the Public Services Ombudsman Act 2016. That is a valuable safeguard, ensuring that independent scrutiny feeds directly into uniform policy enforcement. While some may think that it is not much use, it is there; it is another avenue; and it provides an additional opportunity. Therefore, we welcome it.

Amendment No 10 strengthens transparency. If the Department issues directions to a school, it must publish the text of those directions within three months. That is a clear, unambiguous obligation, and we will therefore support it.

The real concern in the group is what will be removed. Amendment No 5 from the Minister deletes clause 5 entirely. Clause 5 was on the hard reporting duty that required the Department to publish detailed information on uniform costs every three years and to explain whether expense caps were being used and why or why not. That was one of the strongest accountability tools inserted in the Bill. We feel that, by removing clause 5, the Minister is, again, hollowing out that duty. In its place, we are offered amendment No 12, which creates new clause 14B. That amendment weakens the obligation. Yes, it stills require a report every three years, but it waters down the detail. The mandatory detailed reporting in clause 5 is gone. Families deserve transparency that they can rely on, not vague summaries that depend on ministerial discretion.

While we support amendment Nos 7, 8, 9 and 10, we have concerns with amendment Nos 1, 5, 11 and 12. Parents need genuine transparency, not the watered-down version that is being offered.

We must remember the purpose of the Bill. It is supposed to make school uniforms more affordable, to bring transparency into school policies and to ensure that no child's education is compromised because their family cannot meet unfair costs. Every amendment should be judged against that purpose. The amendments that we support move us closer to the goal, and the ones that we have difficulty with move us away from it. Families across the North expect the Assembly to ease the burden, not to entrench it. That must remain our guiding principle with this and other legislation that we bring to the Floor of the House. As we step back, we feel that that is a problem with the Bill as a whole. The safeguards are not strong enough, and too much has been left to ministerial discretion. Whilst this Minister may be forthright and offer his views on it, that is not to say that, in the future, with different Ministers, the priorities might not change, and that might mean that that discretion will change. We feel that the principle is right but the product is weak. It is disappointing that much that could have been put in place to strengthen the Bill never even made it to the Floor of the Assembly. The SDLP will do what it can to strengthen the Bill, but parents and pupils deserved a stronger, bolder piece of legislation than the one that is progressing today.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I take the opportunity to speak in opposition to amendment Nos 5 and 8 and in support of amendment Nos 1, 7, 9, 10 and 11.

Two weeks ago, at Consideration Stage, the Assembly supported measures that gave the Bill some teeth. Throughout our scrutiny of the Bill in Committee and as we engaged with the public, families were clear: they wanted fairness. They will not get fairness if there is no scrutiny, no reporting and no enforcement.

We are content to support the relocation of the scrutiny duty as proposed in amendment Nos 1 and 11.

Amendment No 5 and its relationship with amendment No 12 is concerning. The Minister seems to be trying to dilute his own Bill, attempting to strip out the strong reporting duty agreed at Consideration Stage and replace it with a weaker version under amendment No 12. That is not good enough.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I will give way.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I would be interested in hearing the Member give detail on how amendment No 12 is in any way weaker than what was passed at Consideration Stage. I have outlined the purpose of amendment No 5 and of replacing clause 5 through amendment No 12. Doing so gives greater clarity and strengthens the provision, as opposed to what the Member has just articulated. I would be interested to hear him pinpoint the evidence for what he has said.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Very well. The Minister has a view on how the provision is being strengthened. In our view, however, the amendment does not strengthen it; it dilutes it. Members just have to read the amendment. It is crystal clear to us that it does not, in any way, strengthen the Bill. As far as we are concerned, amendment No 12 is a weaker version of what was agreed at Consideration Stage, and that is not good enough.

Parents who are struggling to pay for a blazer or a PE kit deserve clear evidence that costs are being driven down. We do not see how that will happen. We have still not seen the guidelines, of course. Clause 5 as ordered to stand part at Consideration Stage will give parents factual information on costs. Amendment No 12 enters the realms of aspiration and warm words rather than action. Does the Minister not agree? Families need real evidence that costs are coming down, not just the Department's best guess.

Amendment No 8 is another attempt by the Minister to weaken his own Bill by slipping in the word "undue". That would create a loophole that could be easily exploited. The Bill is meant to be about fairness and should therefore be about protecting young people and their families. The current wording does that. It makes clear that no child should be disadvantaged because of uniform rules. We will not support any weakening of those limited protections.

We have no issue with supporting the technical tidying-up in amendment No 7, and we welcome amendment No 9, which will insert a Public Services Ombudsman report as a trigger for departmental action. That gives parents another credible route for redress.

If the Bill is to have any degree of success in cutting costs for families, we need to see real accountability and transparency. Scrutiny, reporting and enforcement are key areas of the Bill, and they should be enhanced, not undermined.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

The Ulster Unionist Party and I will not play politics with something as important as education. We restate our commitment to the need to support children and young people, our commitment that they will have affordable school uniforms and our commitment that the overriding purpose of the Bill — I asked the Minister on a previous occasion to state this clearly so that it was captured for Hansard and, if need be, for a court — is to make sure that no child is excluded or disciplined because their parents cannot afford an item of uniform. That is its fundamental purpose. It is useful to restate that, and I will explain that as I go on.

I am satisfied with amendment Nos 1, 5, 7 and 12. They are tidying-up exercises. I do not share the concerns that I have heard.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Member for taking an intervention. Does he agree that, as well as not being disciplined or excluded, no child should be humiliated? If there is concern about a child's uniform, it is easy for a teacher to have a simple conversation with that child before or after class and not to humiliate them in front of their classmates.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

I know a lot of teachers: I do not know many who are in the business of deliberate humiliation. We need, however, to give teachers the discretion to have on-the-spot conversations without being worried about some onerous legislation coming down on them. We need to trust our teachers, albeit the Bill provides strong guidance. If teachers engage in humiliation, that should be dealt with through disciplinary measures. It is not something that I recognise in the hard-working teachers across Northern Ireland.

Amendment Nos 1, 5, 7 and 12 are tidying-up exercises. I do not see any malice in what the Minister has done or any dilution of the effect of the legislation.

On amendment No 8, I agree with the insertion of the word "undue". It gets the balance right and affords common sense and flexibility in order to allow minor issues to be dealt with quickly by a school. That is why I said that it was important at the outset to say what the fundamental purpose of the Bill is. If schools started to try to expand the word "undue" in order to frustrate the purpose of the Bill, that clearly would not be permissible. That is why it is so important that we have stated so many times that the purpose of the Bill is to make sure that nobody is excluded or disciplined because their parents cannot afford something. We need to make that clear.

Amendment No 9 is useful. It just clarifies that NIPSO can be a source of evidence in determining whether to make a direction. There is nothing controversial in that.

On amendment No 10, whilst I still have some uncertainty about naming schools, that was the clear wish of the Chamber at Consideration Stage. It is important that we have clarity that the Department can name a school but it should be done as a last resort. Again, we do not want to be involved in humiliation, and that works both ways. It is about education and prevention.

I am happy to support the amendments.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I will get straight into addressing some of the questions that Members raised.

Mr Mathison asked whether, under amendment No 10, it will still be a requirement to name a school: I can confirm that, yes, it will be a requirement. I indicated that, whilst I do not agree with that, I respect the will of the House. That amendment will require that to occur.

I do not know whether there is some confusion about amendment No 5. Mr McGrath spoke to it, as did Mr Sheehan. If Members have a copy of the Bill as amended at Consideration Stage, they might want to turn to page 3, where they will see clause 5 and the heading:

"Reporting on school uniform costs and capping of expense".

That is what I seek to omit from the Bill by way of the amendment that I have tabled. I seek to replace it, through the amendment that I have tabled, with a new clause titled, "Reporting on guidelines and costs". The new clause is more expansive and goes into greater detail.

I outlined in my contribution that the Bill as amended at Consideration Stage does not, for example, make the distinction between a primary school and a post-primary school. It does not allow for that differential so that we can look at the increased cost at post-primary schools. That is where we have branded PE kits, multiple PE kits, blazers, which are a much greater expense, and distinctive blazers that are based on whether you are in an honours choir, your academic success or the sport that you play. I know of no primary school that engages in that kind of activity. Without that change, the Bill will not go into that level of detail. Rather than, as Mr Sheehan said, weakening the Bill, I have enhanced and strengthened it. However, if I cannot convince Members of that and if they do not want to have a stronger Bill in that area, they will vote against it. The intent behind the new clause is to make that much clearer and give more detail.

Nick Mathison (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for giving way. My sense from the debate is that the concern lies with the use of the phrase "best estimates". Members may feel on the basis of the everyday usage of that term that the Department will be guessing or relying on something more anecdotal. I said that I was largely content with what the Minister had laid out in his opening comments. Some assurances on the use of "best estimates" and what information the Department is likely to rely on in producing a report would be welcome.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank Mr Mathison for that point. On "best estimates" and the information that we will gather, he asked whether we would capture outliers and whether we would be able to identify schools whose uniform costs were excessive and beyond the norm or the medium range: the answer is, "Yes, we will be able to do that". There is a subsequent question around whether that will be published and whether we will be able to identify schools in the way that we have talked about the direction naming. Will we be able, through "best estimates", to gather that information and data? Yes, we will. Will that allow us to have those outliers? Yes, it will. That is the intent behind "best estimates".

Sinn Féin and the SDLP might want to reflect on what I have said. The amendment is longer than what is currently in the Bill. It is more detailed, and it will allow us to be more effective in determining the issue between primary settings and post-primary settings, which the Bill, if it goes through unamended, will not allow us to do.

I give way to Mr Sheehan.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

You mentioned in your response to Nick that this is about identifying outliers, but the Bill should not be about identifying outliers. The outliers, of course, should be tackled to make sure that they make their uniforms affordable, but quite a few more schools than just the outliers need to be brought to a position where school uniforms become affordable.

Our difficulty is that we do not believe that you are intent on tackling the main offenders. There are some outliers whose uniform costs are really prohibitive — we are talking between £600 and £800 for a school uniform — but there are others at a level just below that that also need to be tackled for their uniform policies. There is no indication in what the Minister is doing with the Bill that he is intent on doing that.

I ask him to look at schools, such as Craigavon Integrated College, which is able to provide a uniform for £2 less than the uniform grant. If you are really serious about driving down uniform costs, that is what you need to do. There is no indication here that "best estimates" and so on will make any real, concrete difference to the cost of uniforms.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I do not think that the Member has any genuine interest in trying not to understand it, whether that is deliberate or not, but the Bill, as currently proposed, talks about the Department's "assessment": I seek to change the wording around "assessment" to "best estimates". I think the point that he is making is that what I am doing will not address the wider issue, but neither will the Bill as drafted, which he supported.

We have taken advice on the terminology around "assessment". We believe that that wording should be replaced with "best estimates". I have outlined the purpose of what we are going to do. He misses the point that I have raised, which is that that section of the Bill, which, as currently drafted, is around 13 lines in length — not that we should use quantity to judge quality — and we are replacing it with a longer, more detailed clause that allows the assessment or, with the change of terminology, the "best estimates" to include a differential approach for primary and post-primary. The Bill currently does not do that. I have enhanced the provision to make it stronger, and I trust that the majority of Members will understand the purpose of what I am trying to do in respect of that.

Those were the key issues that were raised. Members commented on the word "undue". I have given the reasons why I think that that is appropriate. Mr Burrows gave a good explanation of why he supports that. The argument will remain around the necessity for the word "undue". That is the position that I take in respect of it.

To summarise, I have tabled 11 amendments, which we have debated. They are technical amendments. They improve the language, style and structure of the School Uniforms Bill following Consideration Stage. They are technical amendments that deliver the intention that was stated by Members at Consideration Stage when we debated them and what the impact of those amendments would be.

Within the group, amendment Nos 1 and 5 leave out a subsection and a clause in order for the subsequent amendments, which are Nos 11 and 12, to place them elsewhere in the Bill in their own clauses and in a new chapter. Language has been updated throughout the Bill by my amendments, which provide greater legal clarity and greater consistency in the existing clauses in the Bill and other existing legislation. Nothing has been taken away from the intentions that were voted through in the amendments at Consideration Stage; in fact, in places, I have expanded references to them so that they are included and more effective.

Amendment No 7 moves the words "as follows" for absolute consistency.

Amendment No 8 re-tables that minor amendment from Consideration Stage on the word "undue" as the parameter when directions are being considered. That has been done to be consistent with the materiality parameter at clause 8(1), which is to help protect pupils and schools.

I indicated that, while I do not think that amendment No 9 is necessary, I will not oppose that amendment from Mr Mathison.

Amendment No 10 simply tidies language and relates to the requirements that the Department "must publish" directions:

"within 3 months of giving them."

It is incumbent on every Member to pay heed to the need to make good, workable legislation. I have taken that responsibility seriously and have tabled the necessary amendments. They are technical amendments that do not interfere with the impact of decisions that were taken at Consideration Stage. It is parents who are placing their trust in us as legislators to make legislation that will work. Supporting my amendments today is an opportunity to do just that. It is an opportunity that, I trust and hope, Members will take, and I commend all the group 1 amendments to the House.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Members, as we will not have time to vote on the amendments between now and Question Time and given that the next item of business in the Order Paper is Question Time, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 1.51 pm.

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

Oral Answers to Questions — Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

1. Mr K Buchanan asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline any financial assistance that he plans to provide to rural communities to support rural community halls. (AQO 2416/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I fully acknowledge the importance of sustaining community buildings. On 24 September, the Department for Communities launched the pilot Northern Ireland community infrastructure fund, which includes provision for the refurbishment and improvement of community buildings in rural and urban areas across Northern Ireland. It would therefore not be justifiable at present to develop another, similar scheme specifically for rural areas that would target the same outcomes as the DFC pilot. However, my officials are closely engaging with the DFC team, and I have indicated that I would welcome the potential for future collaboration in this area.

I have also recently launched the rural micro capital grants scheme to provide small but important capital grants to the voluntary and community sector to address locally identified poverty or social isolation issues. The scheme closes for applications on 20 October 2025, with more information available on the DAERA website.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Thank you, Minister, for your answer. You rightly referenced the scheme that Minister Lyons launched last week. Your predecessor launched a rural community halls scheme, which supported 113 halls. Do you envisage giving financial support to Minister Lyons to do more with his scheme, bearing in mind that it takes in rural communities, which are within your remit?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you for your question. I am going to be open about this. We were looking at doing a rural halls scheme, but we found out that the Department for Communities was looking at developing a scheme for rural and urban areas, so I am happy to support Minister Lyons in the work that he is doing in relation to that. We will develop a new rural policy in the time ahead, which will be about ensuring that all Departments play their role in relation to rural communities. It is important that we consult on that, which will happen early in the new year, to get people's views so that we can shape policy. I will continue to work with the Department for Communities on this issue and many others.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

Minister, will you provide an update on any actions that you are taking following the closure of the rural development programme?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

The rural development programme was a popular support arrangement that was funded through the European Union. Unfortunately, it was one of the many casualties of Brexit, but I have taken action in response. I established a new rural policy unit on 1 April 2024 and tasked it with developing future rural policy for Northern Ireland. I recognise that all Departments are responsible for exercising their functions in urban and rural areas and for developing their rural policy. My Department is engaging with other Departments to explore future opportunities for supporting rural communities and to help identify how DAERA can work more effectively with them in the future to deliver better outcomes for rural dwellers. I have also engaged closely with rural stakeholders, providing an opportunity for them to inform future rural policy through a co-design process. That includes input from local government, academics and section 75 groups. It is my intention that a draft rural policy for Northern Ireland will be consulted on early next year.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

The Minister's answer was very honest. He will be aware that a number of conversations are happening at the moment about the lack of cross-departmental cooperation. This is an example of where perhaps that could have been better, given the rural aspect of the question from the DUP Member.

Rural halls very often lack capacity. Will the Minister engage with the Minister for Communities in that regard specifically around rural halls, even though it is a project that is being led by a different Minister?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I am very conscious that, in my role as Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, I have lead responsibility for rural affairs, but each Department has responsibility around this, including duties in legislation. If we all work together, we are going to achieve a better outcome for rural communities. I am happy to talk with you afterwards about what your specific ask is. I can then meet Gordon and discuss that with him. Collectively, we can all do a lot more for rural communities. I am glad to see that the Department for Communities is taking forward its scheme, and I am happy to work with any Minister who is going to help to deliver for rural communities.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

2. Mr Honeyford asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for an update on the delivery of the Lough Neagh report and action plan. (AQO 2417/22-27)

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

15. Mr Clarke asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for his assessment of any blame being apportioned to farming families in relation to the challenges facing Lough Neagh. (AQO 2430/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Mr Deputy Speaker, with your permission, I will group questions 2 and 15 together for answer. Of the 37 actions in the plan, 14 have been delivered, 22 are actively progressing, and one is pending because it is contingent on another action's being taken forward first. I remain committed to driving forward the delivery of the remaining actions at pace. Progress to date reflects coordinated efforts across key themes, including scientific research and innovation, enhanced monitoring and enforcement, education and stakeholder engagement, regulatory reform, and strategic communications. Although important strides have been made, it is essential to recognise that the lough's recovery requires sustained, long-term action. Given the depth and complexity of the problem, substantial recovery will take many years, if not decades.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

What further support does the Minister need from his Executive colleagues over the next year as he addresses the crisis in water quality across Northern Ireland?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you for your question, David. I was glad to get Executive support in July 2024 for the Lough Neagh report and action plan, and I have focused on delivery of that plan. Many actions have been achieved, while others are progressing, but I will need support from my Executive colleagues on some key interventions, one of which relates to waste water infrastructure in particular. I will be looking at strengthening regulation and enforcement for sewage pollution, and I will need support for that. I have been very clear in putting on the record that we will need to be brave in stepping forward to look at the investment that is required in our waste water infrastructure. I am happy to support any proposals that the Minister for Infrastructure brings forward.

Another element is climate change. We have had the warmest summer on record, which is not unrelated to the scenes that we have witnessed in Lough Neagh. We are out to consult on the climate action plan, and, once we conclude the consultation, I will finalise the action plan and bring it to the Executive for agreement. Hopefully, people can support me. There are opportunities to take climate action, but there are also moral and legal imperatives to do so.

A further element relates to environmental governance. We are the only part of the UK and Ireland that does not have an independent environmental protection agency. I commissioned an independent panel to look at the issue, and it came back to me with an interim report in June that recommended the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency. I met the panel last week, and its final report is coming in the next number of weeks. The report will need support so that we can strengthen environmental governance in Northern Ireland.

The final element concerns agriculture. Everyone has to play their part in improving water quality in Northern Ireland. I put on record my thanks for the good work that farmers did in previous decades. They are fantastic custodians of the countryside, and we need to help them on the road ahead. I have therefore been working with the Minister of Finance, because I will need support for a just transition fund for agriculture. We also need to get around the Executive table to finalise an agreed scheme of measures for the nutrients action programme, consult further and get agreement to move forward with it. I believe that we can. If there is a will, there is a way.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I agree with the Minister, as do we all, that there is no doubt that there is an issue with Lough Neagh. It is interesting, however, that, in his answers, he talks about all the assessments that have been carried out. That suggests to me that he is not clear as to what the real issue is in Lough Neagh. What is his or his Department's assessment of the effect that his direct attack on farmers and their families is having on their livelihoods and lives?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

We all know what the problem is in Lough Neagh. Anyone who does not has probably been living under a rock. There is an issue with pollution of the lough, and we need to address that. We have climate change, so the water has therefore got warmer. Invasive species have made the water clearer. We therefore have a situation in which we have had blue-green algae over three successive summers. There has now been advice issued against bathing on the north coast, while the brown eel fishing season has been halted. We have real problems, but I am focused on turning them around.

The years ahead will provide a three-year resource budget and a four-year capital budget. I need that funding for a just transition fund for agriculture so that we can assist farmers on the journey that lies ahead. I am determined to do that, and the type of funding that we are going to need will be put towards low-emission slurry-spreading equipment and many other technologies that are available. If people want to support me and the farming community in Northern Ireland, let us see the budget.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

It has been widely reported, Minister, that 200,000 tons of raw sewage are being pumped into Lough Neagh every year by Northern Ireland Water. Are you able to share the commitments that you have received from the Minister for Infrastructure to reduce that amount significantly, and by when? When can we see the figure of 200,000 tons of raw sewage being halved or eradicated? It is all very well and good your going after farmers and putting targets on them, but when will targets be put on Northern Ireland Water?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I have been crystal clear about the sewage pollution situation. Let me set it out yet again. The situation whereby we are pumping raw sewage into Lough Neagh, Belfast lough and other waterways is not acceptable and needs to be dealt with. My role covers regulation and enforcement. It is not acceptable that there is a separate arrangement in place for NI Water that gives it a bye ball if it can outline how an incident is as a result of historical underinvestment. I have written to NI Water and to the Infrastructure Minister to seek their views on that. I will be bringing proposals to the Executive so that we can strengthen the regulation and enforcement of sewage pollution. What is happening is not acceptable, and it needs to change.

I have been clear about the need to invest in waste water infrastructure. I do not have responsibility for NI Water. The Minister for Infrastructure does, and I am waiting for those proposals, which are a long time coming.

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

Minister, is the discharge of liquid digestate from anaerobic digestion plants contributing to the eutrophication of Lough Neagh? If so, what action is being taken to address that problem?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, Daniel. Anaerobic digesters and how we manage their growth is a big challenge. We need to make sure that anaerobic digesters are not adding to the problem but alleviating it. I am not going to give you statistics off the hoof in the Chamber, but it is a key challenge. There was a conference last week. There is an opportunity for anaerobic digestion, but that should not be to the detriment of the environment.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

3. Mrs Dillon asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, following the decision to hold a further consultation on the nutrients action programme (NAP), how his Department will ensure that farmers’ evidence and practical solutions are fully considered to deliver fair and effective policies for improving water quality. (AQO 2418/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

To support the development of the revised nutrients action programme, I have established a stakeholder task-and-finish group of organisations that represent a range of interests across farming, agri-food and the environment as well as DAERA officials. The group will consider the key findings from the recent NAP consultation, including alternative solutions and evidence submitted through the consultation, and propose evidence-based measures that are workable at farm level, provided that they meet legal obligations to improve water quality and have workable time frames.

In addition, I have asked my Chief Scientific Adviser's office to establish a science subgroup, which will assist the work of the task-and-finish group in ensuring that the final NAP proposals are scientifically robust and evidence-based. The subgroup will have representation from the Agri-food and Biosciences Institute, AgriSearch and other relevant organisations. The aim is to strike the right balance between meeting our legal obligations, which we must do, and improving water quality, whilst supporting the long-term sustainability of Northern Ireland's farming sector. That is key. I believe that, by working collaboratively and constructively, we can achieve those outcomes.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for his answer. I agree that working collaboratively and constructively is exactly the way to go. Having spoken to some farmers, I think that they feel that they are now being listened to, so I appreciate that. Will you confirm whether there has been a formal meeting of the nutrients action programme stakeholder group? Given that DAERA's 2019 review showed that nitrate loss was less of an issue in the North due to our soil profile, and that phosphorus run-off is a primary threat to water quality, will you commit to a more flexible approach to the 80%-grassland rule for derogated farms in the upcoming nutrients action programme, allowing farmers to grow crops such as clover or protein mixes to help to reduce phosphorus loss, improve water quality and cut reliance on imported feed?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

There was an informal meeting of the group a few weeks ago. We are seeking to schedule a formal meeting. Hopefully, we will be able to make announcements, ideally this week, on the appointment of an external facilitator, get that meeting scheduled and start the work. I can feed back the issue that you outlined to the external facilitator. Through that group, there is an opportunity to chart a way forward. From the informal meeting of the group, I know that there is a will to find a way forward and solutions that are workable at farm level, with realistic time frames that meet our legal obligations. We will need funding in order to have a just transition, but I am confident that, if the politics are taken out of it, we can find a way forward.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

Will the Minister finally admit that he got it wrong when he prematurely launched the NAP consultation without prior engagement with industry? Will he apologise for the annoyance that he and his Department caused as a consequence of those actions?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

We went out to consult on proposals for the nutrients action programme. If we now cannot even consult and discuss the issue, that is quite serious with regard to our democracy and how we deal with the seriousness of Lough Neagh. I am glad that the consultation is completed. I thank the thousands of people who responded to it. We are considering the responses. The group will consider those responses alongside any other suggestions that are made during the process. Hopefully, we can get to a place where we ensure that we support farmers on the road ahead. However, we must also recognise that the nutrients action programme does not sit in isolation from issues such as sewage pollution.

I have been very clear, and will be clear again today, about the need to act on that and also to take climate action. These issues are all interlinked, and we have to take those actions together, because we cannot have the same scenes playing out every summer in Lough Neagh.

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

Minister, I admire your optimism when it comes to taking politics out of this. We are politicians. The public elect us to take decisions and hold one another to account. Given that both Sinn Féin and the DUP have, at different times, effectively opposed the core plank of the Lough Neagh improvement and, therefore, opposed improving our water in general, have you had any specific indication from either the Finance Minister or the Infrastructure Minister that they have any plan to coherently increase investment in NI Water over the next number of years? I have not heard anything. In fact, when it comes to the now Finance Minister, who was previously Infrastructure Minister, I heard opposition when he was asked whether he would increase investment —

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Question, Mr O'Toole.

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

— in water. Have you had any indication —

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Mr O'Toole.

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

— that he will actually increase investment?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, Matthew. The proposal to consult on the nutrients action programme was contained in the Lough Neagh report and action plan, so it is no surprise that we consulted on that, and it is also a legal obligation. I have reached out to all political parties asking them to engage with me on these key issues and to give me the support that I will need in the time ahead. I thank you for meeting us recently to discuss that, and I look forward to meeting all the other parties. I also met Mike Nesbitt, the leader of the Ulster Unionist Party, and Robbie Butler last week. I need to meet the DUP and Sinn Féin, and it is important that I do that.

The Budget for Northern Ireland is critical. It is a four-year capital budget and a three-year resource budget. We can shape a Budget that will transform the lives of people in Northern Ireland, but that means facing up to difficult issues. We have to ensure that we are spending our money wisely and using it to transform public services and improve the environment. Time will tell whether we are prepared to do that.

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

4. Ms Finnegan asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs whether he has considered the findings of the British study ‘Acting on methane: opportunities for the UK cattle and sheep sectors’. (AQO 2419/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

My officials and I have taken cognisance of that report and other relevant research in that area. The report recognises that better animal health and welfare have positive impacts on sustainability, the environment, climate change and productivity. A range of DAERA policies align with the recommendations in the report on improving animal welfare, health and efficiency. In the sustainable agriculture programme, those include the bovine genetics project; the beef sustainability package, which comprises the beef carbon reduction scheme, the suckler cow scheme and knowledge programmes targeted at reducing the slaughter age of beef cattle and calving intervals of suckler cows; as well as exploring options around feed and slurry additives. My Department, alongside key stakeholders, is committed to advancing the 'Bovine Tuberculosis in Northern Ireland: Blueprint for Eradication', which was published last year.

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, given the report's finding that animal health diseases such as bovine TB and sheep scab not only harm productivity but drive up greenhouse gas emissions, and given that climate change and the environment are your top two priorities, how can your Department justify the ongoing delays in tackling bovine TB?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you. In my original answer, I said that the blueprint was published last year: it was published in April 2025. It was the Chief Veterinary Officer's report that was published last year, and we then worked with stakeholders to agree a blueprint.

The Member will be aware that the issue of TB predates my time as Minister. I inherited an absolute mess in that regard. A successful judicial review had been taken against the Department, and I had to shape a way forward. This is not unique to Northern Ireland. It is a challenge in the South and across the water. We are focusing on implementing the blueprint, which is based on three pillars: people, cattle and wildlife. I have talked a bit about that in the Chamber in recent weeks and have outlined my belief that there needs to be a wildlife intervention. We will consult on that in the time ahead. We also need to support farmers in building the confidence to deal with this issue and to change the fatalism that sometimes exists, because this issue is having a real effect on farmers' mental health, and we need to be able to support them in the measures that can take place. We also need to continue to support 100% compensation, and I have been doing that in conjunction with the Finance Minister.

Believe me, I understand the importance of the issue and the impact that it is having on farmers in Northern Ireland and on my Department's budget. We will focus on delivery over the time ahead, but we need to get people to support the measures and the interventions required.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Minister, all of this feeds into the importance of climate action. Will you tell us what is happening and give us an update on your first climate action plan?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

The climate action plan is out for consultation, and part of that is on agriculture. However, agriculture is only one sector; many other sectors have a role to play in the climate action plan, such as transport, energy, housing and many others. Although climate change sits in and is a lead responsibility of my Department, I cannot be left to do all the heavy lifting on it. Other people have a responsibility to take actions forward. Through the sustainable agriculture programme, we support farmers on what lies ahead, and it is really important that we do, because, by taking action on animal health and welfare, we can ensure better outcomes for our environment and climate and deliver a decarbonised future.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

Will the Minister provide a timescale for the establishment of a dedicated co-design group to develop support measures for the sheep sector? Does he have adequate resources in his Department to progress that work?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I have been very clear that sheep support is a priority for me and my Department. Once we get the farm sustainability payment and farm sustainability standards in place — hopefully, we can get that done this year, because people have been trading entitlements on the basis that that new payment arrangement will come into place from 1 January — we will be able to move resources towards the sheep support scheme and the roll-out of Farming with Nature. We do not have infinite resources, but I am very clear that it is a priority for us to establish that support. Once we get the farm sustainability payment and farm sustainability standards in place, resources can move to it.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

5. Mr Irwin asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline the steps that he is taking to address the delays in the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) responding to planning application consultations. (AQO 2420/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

As a statutory consultee in the planning system, DAERA's performance is measured against a duty to respond to a statutory consultation within 21 calendar days or an otherwise agreed timescale. I am aware of the frustrations that are caused by the time that it takes my Department to respond as a statutory consultee to some planning consultations. Ongoing measures that are already being prioritised include a review and update of internal processes and procedures; a review of the standing advice and guidance that are available on the DAERA website, with the aim of improving the quality of applications that are submitted and encouraging councils to consult us less frequently; analysis of consultations that are being receipted to inform targeted measures to reduce the level of re-consultation and improve the quality of information that is submitted with a consultation; engagement with other jurisdictions; exploring prioritisations for exceptional cases with planning authorities; and staff resourcing in my Department, which includes seeking to recruit additional staff for that work area.

My officials are working to deliver a planning improvement plan during 2025-26. That plan will include a range of measures to improve planning performance and service and will cover the following five strands: technical advice and guidance; caseload management; monitoring and reporting on performance; process and IT systems; and communication and stakeholder engagement. In addition, my Department is working in collaboration with the Department for Infrastructure's cross-governmental planning statutory consultee forum and has contributed to a number of exercises that are aimed at driving forward continuous improvements in the planning system.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his response. Does he accept that, despite his past promises, the NIEA is still not meeting its consultation response time frames?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

It is a fact that we do not meet those targets, and one of the key issues in that is resources and recruiting people into the role. We are continuing to focus on that. I understand the concerns about the matter, and we continue to work at it.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Further to the Minister's replies, have efforts been made to recruit more NIEA staff in order to improve response times to planning applications?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

The Department is actively seeking to recruit nine new staff members to support the planning function in the natural environment division of NIEA. It is hoped that, once in post, those new staff will add resilience to the DAERA planning function in order to support a reduction in response time frames.

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

Minister, may I add to that? I am glad to see that there is a programme of action for rectifying some of the deficiencies. When will the programme that you just outlined be fulfilled? Will part of that include at least responses to elected representatives that give some clarity on where in the process an application is? What part of the process that you outlined will include improvements in communication and training for councils? I accept that, in many cases, councils refer stuff to NIEA that they should not.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

The time frame for delivery relies largely on resources. Every time that I receive correspondence from Members, MPs or councillors asking for an update, it breaks my heart to have to reply, "That was the last time that we received something. We cannot give you any further update". We need to do better in that regard. We need to turn responses around. That is why we are focused on developing a programme to improve response times. There is an issue with how we engage with councils, and that is a key measure to take forward. As I said, however, the key point is that we need resource.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

6. Mr Butler asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for his assessment of the food safety risks in relation to the threat of illegally imported meat into the UK, as outlined in ‘Biosecurity at the Border: Britain’s Illegal Meat Crisis’. (AQO 2421/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Responsibility for assessing and managing the risks from illegally imported meat rests with the UK Government through the border target operating model (BTOM). I continue to engage with UK Government counterparts and have emphasised the importance of implementing the BTOM at the earliest opportunity to strengthen biosecurity and safeguard public and animal health.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for his answer. It did not have a lot of detail. When it comes to smuggling illegal meat or smuggling anything, smugglers will look for the easiest route. What do we do here to protect ourselves from illegal meat-smuggling through the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I have engaged significantly with the UK Government on the issue on the back of recent reports, including the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (EFRA) Committee report that came out on 8 September. Movements of meat products between GB and NI largely sit with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but I have made my case on the issue. I have also had conversations with my counterpart in the South about the importance of the issue, and he has reassured me about the interventions that his Government are making. My ultimate message to people is about the importance of vigilance and ensuring that meat is not illegally imported into Northern Ireland.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Has the Minister any statistics on the quantity of illegal meat entering Northern Ireland and on the route by which it comes? Is it by sea, by air or principally by land through the Republic of Ireland? Is he aware of any attempts to bring in live animals by smuggling?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

That is slightly complicated because of the Secretary of State's direction and control powers and the differential that sits in my Department. As Minister, I am aware of concerns that have been raised about movements of products from outside the European Union into the European Union and then across from Calais to Dover. They should not have come through Dover. Products have come through GB and have been stopped at the border control point at, for example, Belfast or Larne. We have had a situation in which illegal meat imports were stopped. It is good that they did not get in. We have also had a report, of which you are probably aware, of sheep being brought through illegally. I commend the Ulster Farmers' Union's leadership in joining us on the message about the importance of that not happening and the importance of biosecurity. I have focused very much, as many other people have, on reducing the friction between GB and NI. One of the issues arising from that is with border security at Dover. It is therefore important that I engage with the UK Government in advance of those checks being removed or reduced, so that the BTOM is in place and we do not have those movements from Calais to Dover.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

I ask the Minister for an update on the sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) veterinary agreement between the UK and the EU.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

The agreement was reached in May of this year. The UK Government are working through the negotiation of the legal text. We understand that implementation will take place in 2027. It will have real benefits for us when it comes to the movement of agri-food products between GB and NI. I have made it clear to the UK Government that the agreement should extend beyond that and that they should have an ambition for a customs agreement between the UK and the EU. They have said that that is not on the agenda and is a red line, but I am clear on the substantial benefits that it would have for Northern Ireland and the UK economy, and I continue to make that case.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Carál, if you can get your question in in 30 seconds, go for it.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

7. Ms Ní Chuilín asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs how the clean air strategy will address emissions hot spots in Belfast to ensure measurable improvements in public health. (AQO 2422/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

My Department continues to finalise the actions in the draft clean air strategy. The strategy's focus will be on improving air quality across Northern Ireland, including Belfast, with a focus on human health. Whilst my Department will lead on the work, there is an important role for other Departments to play to ensure that, together, we bring about the change that is needed to improve air quality. By working together, we can deliver a strategy that will further address air pollution emissions and hotspots to ensure that there are measurable improvements, to the benefit of public health.

I am conscious that air quality often affects those who are least well off in Northern Ireland. That is why it is important that we get out and consult on the issue. It is also important that other Departments, and the Department for the Economy and the Department for Communities in particular, play their role.

We have a role to play. Let us get this agreed, get it out to consult and deal with the air quality issues that are affecting far too many people in Northern Ireland, particularly people in the Member's constituency.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you, Minister. That concludes the period for listed questions. We now move on to 15 minutes of topical questions.

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

T1. Mr McCrossan asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, whose Department admitted to Patsy McGlone that it had 13 meetings with DFI on the A5 between 2022 and 2024, why the Department's response to a freedom of information request was almost entirely redacted, why DAERA is obstructing public scrutiny of its role in the long-delayed project and whether he will finally publish the full details of his interactions with the Department for Infrastructure. (AQT 1591/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

The request for freedom of information was processed and responded to in line with the relevant legislation. The relevant exemptions were applied in respect of withheld or redacted information, and that was fully outlined in the response. As Minister, I do not get involved in deciding what is released and what is not released with regard to freedom of information, and that is the right approach.

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

Minister, that does not really answer the question. I understand that private information that could identify individuals must be redacted, but almost all of the document was redacted, including conversations or approaches to dealing with the A5, if there were any such discussions. Will the Minister confirm to the House that he will revisit it in the interest of transparency, and can he give an assessment of why it went so badly wrong in court?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Mr McCrossan, I do not get involved in freedom of information requests to the Department. If I, as the Minister, were doing that, you would be the first to say that it was totally inappropriate. You have the right to appeal the decision. I am not going to say to officials, "Release this and do not release that"; that is not the way to run a Department.

One of the issues about the A5 is the appeal that is under way. I have been clear that I have intervened with regard to that. It is important that I do that, because I believe in taking action on climate change. It is important that we implement the legislation as it was intended, and I have intervened in relation to the appeal in furtherance of that.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

T2. Mr McAleer asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, given that we recently marked Rural Crime Action Week, whether he has any update on the Rural Crime Partnership. (AQT 1592/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Yes, I engaged with the Justice Minister on the importance of Rural Crime Week, and we profiled that because, collectively, working across government and with the Police Service of Northern Ireland, it is important that we raise awareness of those issues and encourage people to come forward and report them. The Member knows that there are many issues in rural communities. Naomi and I gave a focus during the launch to the issue of domestic violence. It is an issue that has touched far too many homes in Northern Ireland and has a particularly acute impact on rural communities, where the feeling of isolation can be acute and the importance of support services is absolutely key. I will continue to work with my partners, particularly the Justice Minister, in that regard.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his response; indeed, I share his view that crime in rural areas is compounded by the sense of isolation. In his engagement with the Rural Crime Partnership, would it be possible or desirable to target resources into areas where there is a particular identified need and high risk?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

That is something for which, thankfully, we have arrangements in place. We have the policing and community safety partnerships (PCSPs) in Northern Ireland that can shape local responses. I am happy to discuss with the Member any particular concerns that he has and relay those to my partners in the justice system.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

T3. Mr K Buchanan asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs why he is letting the agriculture sector be vilified for the pollution of our waterways, given that, over the last number of months, the Member has witnessed and seen on social media NI Water failures directly related to waterways, as has probably every Member in the Chamber. (AQT 1593/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I am the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, and I have been clear that water pollution needs to be dealt with. I will again say today, in case people were not listening, that sewage pollution of our waterways is not acceptable. I want to strengthen regulation and enforcement on that, because the situation in Lough Neagh and other places, such as Lough Erne and Belfast lough, is not acceptable.

Belfast lough is fast becoming another Lough Neagh. Soon, it will be nothing short of an open-air sewer. I am very clear that, with regard to NI Water, we need to strengthen regulation and enforcement. I will continue to do that, and I look forward to having the Executive's support on that.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

Minister, we have heard the magic numbers of 62/24/12 from agriculture, sewage and septic tanks respectively. Can you provide evidence for those numbers, or were they part of a desktop exercise to point the finger at the industries involved?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

There have been two reports. The Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute's (AFBI) 'RePhoKUs' study came out in 2020. That peer-reviewed science has been published. More recently, New Harmonica research has pointed towards the sources of pollution. Such research allows us to target our action.

I will say two things. We can go through the statistics and talk numbers and all the rest of it. Belfast lough is in a dire state. Lough Erne is in a desperate state. Lough Neagh has been green for the past three summers. There is a ban on bathing on the north coast. There is only so far that people can go in debasing science and evidence before it catches up with them. It is clear that we have a problem. It would be great if we could accept the problem and work together to address it. I am working really hard to address the issue and am trying to work with people to do so. If people do not want to support me in that, that is fine, but they need to take ownership of the consequences of their actions.

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

T4. Ms Finnegan asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, having noted the ongoing delay with the sheep-focused co-design process, whether he can give concrete assurances to the sheep sector, which is the backbone of upland and marginal farming, that it will not be treated as an afterthought in the development and roll-out of the sustainable agriculture programme. (AQT 1594/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Unlike my predecessor, that is a priority for me. When the measures under the sustainable agriculture programme were announced in March 2022, that matter did not feature. I have been clear that, once we get the farm sustainability payment and farm sustainability standards in place, we will move resources to support the roll-out of a sheep support scheme and to support Farming with Nature. I cannot be any clearer.

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Minister, do you acknowledge the real risk that the sheep sector, which already faces challenges, could be further disadvantaged and left vulnerable by competing departmental priorities and a policy process that appears to be increasingly disconnected from the realities on the ground?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Once I have the resources, I will put them towards the development of the scheme. When I read the 'Irish Farmers Journal' every Wednesday evening, the North/South differential is not lost on me. Part of that is a result of leaving the EU. I am left with the consequences of that and have to develop new farm support policies for Northern Ireland. Leaving the EU has been a monumental disaster for Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK. We are grateful for the benefits that we have through the Windsor framework, which allows us to trade with the rest of the UK and the EU. Without the Windsor framework, the dairy industry would be destroyed. I am very focused on delivering support for the sheep sector, but we have to focus on delivery on the ground and on having the resources to do that.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

T5. Ms Brownlee asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs whether he will admit that the continued demonisation of farmers has caused a widespread scepticism of his agenda when it comes to the future of farming's viability and well-being. (AQT 1595/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I must have been the subject of this morning's DUP team meeting on its strategy for questions.

The answer to your allegation is a complete no. As Minister, I have been out and about, and your representations of me and the Alliance Party could not be further from the truth. As Minister, I am focused on delivery on the ground. The DUP offers negativity, wedge issues and culture wars: negative, negative, negative.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

I really do not think that the farmers will find Members' laughter to be a very good response to the topic.

Over the weekend, the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) expressed its frustration about misinformation on how the NAP group has been working with no chairman or terms of reference. Will the Minister be clear about the status of the group and apologise to the stakeholders involved?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I made it clear that we hope to make an announcement about an external facilitator this week. Hopefully, we will be able to have a meeting of the group in the time ahead. I am grateful for the role that everyone has played. It has been challenging — that is people's job — but it has been constructive, and we will work to deliver on it. The negativity from the DUP comes daily in this place, but the positivity comes from these Benches.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

T6. Mr Donnelly asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, noting that today marks the start of Northern Ireland Environment Week, which has a particular focus on peatland restoration, to update the House on the peatland strategy. (AQT 1596/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Recently, I was delighted to launch the peatland strategy to 2040. It is Northern Ireland's first peatland strategy. It offers five strategic objectives and 26 actions that will allow us to move forward with the benefits of peatland restoration. The benefits are clear in carbon storage, nature restoration and improved water quality. I am very grateful for all the stakeholder engagement in the process to date and to the stakeholders who came along to the launch. It offers us many benefits, including, in particular, the opportunity to create good green jobs in Northern Ireland.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

Will the Minister develop further how peatlands can help to tackle the climate and biodiversity crisis?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

The overwhelming majority of our peatlands in Northern Ireland are in a degraded state. Many of them are emitting carbon rather than capturing it. By restoring our peatlands, we can turn that situation round and offer benefits to local communities. It is a win-win. I am grateful for the support that we have got through the Shared Island Fund and PEACE PLUS. I will continue to engage with the Finance Minister on additional support for that.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

T7. Mr Bradley asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs how he will balance climate and biodiversity targets with the need to keep family farms sustainable. (AQT 1597/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

My Department is doing that through the roll-out of the sustainable agriculture programme. We want to build resilience in farming and a successful future for it while ensuring that we meet our environmental goals. The idea that environmental protection and farming do not go hand in hand is untrue. We see it happening daily on farms in Northern Ireland. I am grateful for the great work that is being done. I want to be able to support farmers on the road ahead. A lot of myths are being perpetuated about farming in Northern Ireland, including in the Chamber today. It is a success story. Good work is being done. We want to support farmers on the road ahead.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

Minister, how will you ensure that farm families are supported with grants and advice to meet climate targets, rather than being penalised? How will you prevent blanket measures that could drive smaller farms out of business?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

A key, fundamental issue is that, when we were in the EU, we had ring-fenced funding support for agriculture, agrienvironment, fisheries and rural development but that ended at the end of March 2025. I was the only Minister in the UK to secure ring-fencing of that funding in this and future years. It is absolutely critical that we have that funding support in place. We have been rolling it out through the farm sustainability transition payment. We will continue to do that in the years ahead. We need to support farmers to build resilience and have a successful and sustainable future. We are doing just that.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

T8. Mr Frew asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to explain how the Dilapidation Bill will have a positive impact on the great constituency of North Antrim. (AQT 1598/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

It will have a very positive impact not just in North Antrim but in North Down, South Belfast and West Tyrone. That is what this place should be known for: delivery. The Dilapidation Bill will say to people who own the buildings, "Either you fix it, or the council will fix it and send you the bill". It will be an example of good legislation being passed in this place. It will turn the situation around and bring back vibrancy in neighbourhoods, villages, towns and city centres and will help to support councils and build their rates base.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I call Mr Frew for a quick supplementary question.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I really appreciate that.

Can the Minister explain how the Bill will affect domestic property, privately owned property and commercial and business property?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

The Bill is wide-ranging with regard to the properties in question. There are already powers in place, but the legislation is outdated. The Bill will give much more flexibility with regard to potential fixed penalty notices. All MLAs in the Chamber will know of buildings that cause real dilapidation in neighbourhoods, affecting neighbours and all the rest of it. The Bill will allow councils to move in to address that. Hopefully, that will turn the situation around quickly from the beginning. It will be important legislation. It has been a long time coming. I am grateful to the Committee, ably chaired by Robbie, for its scrutiny of the Bill.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I call Tom Buchanan. You have about 30 seconds.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

T9. Mr T Buchanan asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, having noted that he likes to talk a good talk, what positive action he has taken since coming into office to curb the tuberculosis crisis in Northern Ireland. (AQT 1599/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I inherited unparalleled challenges. We commissioned the Chief Veterinary Officer to tackle TB. On his first day in work, I said, "Congratulations," and gave him the task of reviewing the issue and finding a way forward. He did that, managing to get agreement from all the stakeholders around the table on a blueprint for the way forward. We are focused on delivering that. One of the fundamentals —

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you, Minister. Time is up. That concludes questions to the Minister of Agriculture.

Oral Answers to Questions — Education

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

1. Mr Durkan asked the Minister of Education to outline any consideration given to the impact that the removal of AS levels will have on students from Northern Ireland applying to higher education through the Central Applications Office (CAO) process in the Republic of Ireland. (AQO 2431/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

My Department’s consultation on the future of the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment's (CCEA) GCSEs, AS levels and A levels is an opportunity for students, parents, educators, employers and other stakeholders to contribute by sharing their views on how to improve the structure, content and assessment of those qualifications. The consultation includes a proposal to remove AS levels in order to reduce pressure on students and teachers and to free up time for teaching and deeper learning. My proposals reflect a clear ambition to ensure that CCEA's GCSEs, AS levels and A levels remain relevant, nationally and internationally relevant.

On the concerns about applying for higher education in the Republic of Ireland, I can confirm that, if the decision is made to remove the CCEA AS levels, stand-alone AS levels from other awarding organisations will still be available for the very small number of students who require them.

Consideration will be given to any concerns that are raised through the consultation process.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I am glad to have received some clarification from the Minister. Obviously, the consultation is ongoing, but will he elaborate on which AS levels would still be available and acceptable to the CAO?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

If they wish, schools would be able to bring in other awarding bodies and qualifications.

It is a consultation exercise. I have listened to principals, some of whom are very passionate about removing AS levels because of the increased time that is spent preparing for tests and the pressure that that puts on teachers and pupils. I have also heard from principals who are strong advocates for the retention of AS levels. I have gone out to consultation to get the views of the sector.

Where there would be implications for entry into courses in the Republic of Ireland, that would need to be taken into account before any decision were taken on the matter. I have an open mind on this, but I see the merit in the proposals in that they would reduce the number of times that our young people are tested and increase the amount of time that they get to learn and be taught in the classroom.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

Will the Minister tell us the timeline for the decision on AS levels?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I intend to confirm my policy framework intentions in early 2026. Following that, CCEA Regulation would be required to prepare a regulatory framework from which CCEA, being the awarding organisation, would undertake a full revision of its qualifications. Prior to the roll-out of new specifications, that process took a minimum of two years. Once we get the consultation responses, we will assess them and determine the way forward. I intend to do that in early 2026.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Minister, you alluded to the concern about how the removal of AS levels might impact on the health and well-being of young people. Have you or your Department engaged with the Children's Commissioner, the Secondary Students' Union or the mental health champion on the proposals?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

There is an opportunity for everybody to participate in the consultation. The process that was followed before we went out to consultation included engagement with a range of stakeholders, including pupils — their voices were heard on the matter — and teachers.

I recognise that there is increased anxiety in relation to the issue, given the amount of testing of our young people that takes place, particularly in years 11, 12, 13 and 14. They are on a constant conveyor belt of examinations. They are prepped for those examinations and are often taught to the test. We need to recalibrate that so that they have the opportunity to engage in a rich curriculum and gain a detailed understanding of the subject matter. Assessment will, of course, always be a part of our qualifications system.

Take AS levels as an example. Preparations for those examinations happen within months of starting lower sixth. Schools will then often have the young people off to prepare for their mocks. That could be for two or three weeks. The AS levels are then completed in May. Some schools do not bring the children back for the entire month of June. It can be up to seven weeks in the life of those young people that they are not in the classroom and are not being taught because they are subject to an examination process. I see the merits in the arguments of those who say that we should remove those exams, but I am also alert to some of the arguments that are made to me about why there is an opportunity for their retention. That is because it can be a wake-up call for some young people if their results do not go as they intended, so that can help to motivate them.

It is also concerning to me that we have a very small number of schools that withdraw the opportunity for those young people to complete their A levels, in that they allow them to do only one year of study and then abandon them. That is not appropriate either, so there is a mixed environment on which to take a view. I genuinely hope that we will get a range of views and that we can then proceed on what we have determined as the best way forward.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

2. Mr McAleer asked the Minister of Education for an update on plans for capital investment in Dean Maguirc College, Carrickmore. (AQO 2432/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The major capital project for Dean Maguirc College was announced in 2022. It remains on hold. As I previously said, I will continue to keep all projects that were announced under the major capital works programme in March 2022 and that are currently on hold under review. However, the delivery of all announced projects will very much be dependent on securing additional and significant sustained capital funding.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his response. Minister, has your Department engaged with the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools (CCMS) on moving forward on and developing proposals for Dean Maguirc College?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member has advocated on behalf of the college consistently over the past year and a half. Currently, the college has approved admission and enrolment numbers of 80 and 440 respectively. However, as I previously advised, CCMS is seeking to increase those numbers through the development proposal (DP). In the interim, the school can continue to request additional places on an annual basis through a temporary variation process until a DP is brought forward. I understand that CCMS wrote to the school in April 2025 and provided an update on the progress of the development proposal submission. However, obviously, as I will be the decision maker when the development proposal comes across my desk, it would be inappropriate for me to comment further.

Tom Buchanan (DUP, West Tyrone)

Minister, which schools that were announced to have work done under the major capital works programme in March 2022 have now progressed through planning?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

An extensive list — there were well in excess of 20 schools — was published back then. We were able to move forward on seven projects. Those were Carrickfergus Academy; Dromore High School; Edmund Rice College; Loreto College in Coleraine; Malone Integrated College; Mercy College; and Portadown College. In each of those seven, the integrated consultant teams have been appointed and the initial feasibility studies to explore potential accommodation options for each school are under way.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Question 3 has been withdrawn.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

4. Mrs Guy asked the Minister of Education when statutory guidance will be introduced on children missing in education. (AQO 2434/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

My officials are reviewing potential legislative gaps and are working to develop departmental guidance on the issue of children missing in education. Addressing that issue effectively requires a coordinated multi-agency approach. To that end, my officials continue to engage with colleagues in the Department of Health and the Education Authority (EA) to explore opportunities for improved information sharing and collaborative action in that policy area. Work is under way to examine the processes and policies that are in place across other jurisdictions, with a view to identifying best practice and informing local approaches. In parallel, consideration is being given to the range of data sources that may be required to support a more effective response to children missing in education.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Minister, for that answer. The issue of children missing in education is a serious one and a genuine safeguarding concern, so thank you for the work that you are taking forward in the Department.

I first asked the question in relation to the tragedy of Kyran Durnin in the South, and I was so concerned about the answer that I got that I had to do everything that I could as a private Member to try to address the issue. As the Minister with the power to act, can you give assurances that, in this mandate, there will be movement and progress on legislation on guidance and data sharing?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for her question. Her concern is one that I share.

When it comes to attendance levels, for children who are enrolled in a school but do not attend, there is a process involving education welfare officers (EWO). We know that, after the first four weeks of the academic year, there are children who have still not gone to school. They are actively being pursued by the EWOs in the Education Authority and by the schools. What we do not know is this: parents have a responsibility to pursue a place in education for the children in their family, but there is no legislative requirement on the parent to inform the Department of Education or the EA if they decide not to register or enrol their child in a school, because they are going to be homeschooled, for example. If a child has been registered and deregistered, we know that they have been deregistered. However, there is a challenge in sharing information. We know how many people are born in Northern Ireland — we have a record of that — but, if a child subsequently leaves the jurisdiction with their family, we do not know that.

There is, therefore, a lack of information, which, as I referenced in my response to the original question, requires collaboration between Health and the EA. We need to be able to determine, with clear and factual information, how many children are missing in education. I have outlined where I believe there are gaps in the information and that that has an impact on how effective we are in addressing those concerns. It is something that the Department is actively working on. Whether I can give the Member a guarantee that that will lead to legislation in this mandate remains to be seen. However, I assure the Member that there is an urgency to making sure that we have as much information as possible to help us.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I will ask about another group of children who are not able to access education: those who experience emotion-based school non-attendance. Recently, I met parents who are experiencing that with their children — they told me heartbreaking stories. What steps is the Minister taking to make sure that those children receive the right support and that schools receive the right resources to respond?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The range of reasons why people do not attend school can be multifaceted. The Member has outlined one reason why a child may not be in attendance at school, and there are many others. If they are registered but not attending, we know that. There is support. Yes, the question, "How effective is it?" could be asked, but education welfare officers can proactively engage with the families. I am happy to look in more detail into that particular issue, but I assure Members that we want our children to be in school. It is where they are safest, and it is where they are best placed to gain an education. It is in nobody's interests for them not to attend school.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

In a previous mandate, I raised serious concerns about children missing from care and the lack of data on that in the Department of Health. The lack of accurate data relating to this issue is, as another example, also very alarming. Who has responsibility for monitoring protocols for children missing in education?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The education welfare service within the EA has operational responsibility for children missing in education. A number of procedures and protocols are in place for such children, including protocols involving colleagues in other jurisdictions that relate to children missing in education, because that is also an issue for us. The education welfare service has operational responsibility in that area. Members have highlighted particular examples, and the information that was published in a media article is a result of the Department's work to understand what data is held by GPs and the health service and what information we lack as we try to move forward on this. That has generated a fair degree of interest, which is welcome, but we need to move beyond that kind of scoping work to real, meaningful processes to help identify children who are missing and to do what we can to make sure that they are engaged in education.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

5. Mr Butler asked the Minister of Education to outline his engagement with the Minister of Health and the Minister for the Economy in relation to post-19 education for young people with special educational needs. (AQO 2435/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Whilst my Department has no remit for education provision for young people with special educational needs beyond the age of 19, I am committed to working with the Economy and Health Ministers to ensure that young people with special educational needs are supported as they transition out of the school system into adult life. In July 2025, I responded to Minister Archibald's paper to the Executive on post-school provision for young people with special educational needs.

I have confirmed my broad support for her proposals and signalled my commitment to working with her Department in taking forward the proposals.

In addition, my officials have engaged extensively with colleagues in the Department for the Economy and the Department of Health through a cross-departmental working group on transitions as part of the end-to-end review of special educational needs. As we move forward, one of the actions in the SEN reform delivery plan is the development of a transitional support programme, and collaborative working across the three Departments is expected to continue.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for his fulsome answer. There has been a lot of debate about this since we returned to the Assembly. Families struggle to understand what the timescale for delivery might look like. I understand that that perhaps lies more with the Minister for the Economy. From my perspective, given the work that you have undertaken in the SEN space, you have a significant part to play. Is there any timescale that you can add for when delivery might happen and change might occur?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The work of trying to ensure that the transition process is better is active and ongoing. That is why we need to ensure, under the legislation that we have, that people stay in the education settings until the academic year in which they turn 19. After that, there is the transition process that Health and Economy are involved in. We need to ensure that that works better than it currently does. There are good examples of where it works, but there are areas of concern where it does not work as effectively as it should.

A big focus for our three Departments is how we effectively manage the transition process. I have a particular interest in ensuring that that is effective, because we have thousands of children who need entry to our special schools at ages three, four and five and then into post-primary-type settings. We need to make sure that there is a flow of young people leaving education settings and transitioning, with Economy and Health playing their role in that; otherwise, we will not be able to accommodate all the children who rightly want their place confirmed in those settings. The transition process is hugely important for us to make that more effective. The Minister for the Economy is leading in that area, but I assure Members that I will play my full part in supporting the proposals that she has brought to the Executive.

Nick Mathison (Alliance, Strangford)

This question highlighted the cross-cutting nature of this, and that is absolutely right. However, as for your Department's responsibilities, it is my understanding that, as of April this year, 9,000 young people in the system needed to avail themselves of the EA's transition service. Can you assure the Assembly that that service is properly resourced to meet the demand that is clearly in the system?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for that question. The transition service currently supports over 11,000 young people. As with all SEN support, the transition service — he is right — is stretched, given the unprecedented increase in the number of young people with special educational needs. I referenced the reform agenda and the delivery plan that I published in respect of that. That includes an action to implement a transitional support programme that builds on the EA's existing service. Full implementation of that action requires some additional funding that is over and above my current budget. However, there are certainly plans there, if we can effect them, that will assist the EA's transition service in managing those issues.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Member across the way for asking the question.

Minister, do you agree that the transition process at whatever stage, whether it is going to primary school from nursery school or to secondary school, is really traumatic for parents, because it is so poorly managed? Have you had any conversations with the Health Minister about providing a health and care plan from birth to post-19 for children with additional needs to ensure that they all achieve the most that they can and that we remove that trauma for families?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member rightly outlines the emotional distress that is often experienced by families who rightly campaign and care for their loved ones. While there are challenges, the school environment is effective at supporting those young people. As they approach 19 years of age, there is a fear about the level of support or, indeed, the lack of support that will exist in the post-19 experience. That is why there needs to be a more effective process for allowing our young people to move from a special educational needs-type setting into other areas for which the Department of Health and the Department for the Economy have responsibility. I agree that that transition needs to be processed and managed in a better way. It is the parents who often carry the burden of responsibility, because they want the very best for their child. We need to give effect to the ambitions and hopes that they have for their young people by supporting them. We need to ensure that we give effect to that support where it is best placed.

My Department has a role to play, but two other Departments have a key role to play. It cannot be left to Minister Archibald, to Minister Nesbitt or, indeed, to me. There is a collective responsibility on all of us to do better in the area.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Question 6 has been withdrawn.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

7. Mr Martin asked the Minister of Education whether he has any plans in relation to literacy development in children. (AQO 2437/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Literacy is the foundation of all education. Proficiency in reading, writing and spoken language is vital for pupils' success in school, training and work. I have signalled my intention to develop a new strategy for literacy that is grounded in international best practice and the latest evidence. The strategy will be developed in parallel with the work of the curriculum task force and will provide guidance to support schools in developing pupils' reading, writing and oracy skills. It will also set out a comprehensive programme of action to support teachers across Northern Ireland. In advance of that, I plan to issue a literacy circular to outline the key principles for effective literacy instruction, alongside practical strategies to enhance literacy development. That will be supported by professional learning opportunities in areas such as the science of reading, spelling, writing and oracy.

Through the RAISE programme, I have introduced a "Reading with AI" research project that will provide schools with an opportunity to see how AI tools can support literacy. The study is led by Oxford Brookes University using Amira learning, which is a reading support tool that is aligned with research-informed approaches to early literacy and is powered by AI.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his answer. What does the research tell us about current literacy outcomes?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

While schools will hold their own rich data on pupils' progress and attainment, our system has limited publicly available national data on how children are performing in literacy throughout primary school and Key Stage 3. End of Key Stage assessment arrangements were not widely operational from 2014-15 right through until 2023-24, but, in the 2024-25 academic year, we saw a return of end of Key Stage assessments for the first time since the COVID-19 pandemic. Assessments were based on teacher judgement against the levels of progression in communication and in using mathematics. That gave us a clearer understanding of where our education system stands following the challenges of recent years.

The data published by CCEA shows that nearly three in 10 pupils are not achieving at the expected levels in literacy and numeracy by the end of primary school. That is a significant concern, particularly as those foundational skills are essential for pupils' future learning, well-being and life opportunities. It is also a stark reminder of the challenges that we face, and it highlights the urgent need for a renewed focus on literacy and numeracy in our schools. The new data provides a vital baseline for informing targeted support and future interventions.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

The Minister will be aware that the importance of reading is promoted through the Sure Start programme. Does he have any plans to expand that provision further in Northern Ireland as part of the forthcoming early learning and childcare strategy?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Not only have we expanded Sure Start through the early years funding for which the Executive provided ring-fenced support but we were able to stabilise the organisation and expand its reach. Where there were temporary schemes in place, we have been able to mainstream them into a permanent zoning of areas where Sure Start operates, and there can now be referrals into Sure Start areas from neighbouring areas as well.

We have therefore been able to enhance Sure Start, but we have also provided early years funding through initiatives such as Bookstart. The Member rightly highlights how it is important not only that young people be proficient in reading and develop the skills but that they get a love for reading. I was not someone who really enjoyed reading, and I did not do enough of it when I was at school. We need to cultivate an environment in which there is a love of reading, because all the evidence shows that that can have a really significant impact on the academic success of young people as they progress through our education system.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

8. Mr Tennyson asked the Minister of Education to outline the measures that his Department will implement to ensure that delays related to construction of modular classrooms do not further impact on the commencement of the academic year for pupils in special educational needs settings. (AQO 2438/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Where the delivery of specialist provision accommodation has been delayed, the Education Authority has been working with affected schools to ensure that contingency arrangements are in place to mitigate the impact on pupils and their families. Each individual capital work project is overseen by a dedicated project manager to monitor the delivery programme. However, unforeseen circumstances can still arise, such as the discovery of a live electrical cable at Ceara School in the Member's constituency, that will inevitably impact on the delivery programme. My Department, working with the Education Authority, continues to monitor active capital work schemes to reduce delays as far as possible.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

Thank you, Minister, for that answer. You referenced Ceara special school, where a number of children have faced delay. That has left their families feeling let down and as though their children are at the back of the queue. What assurance can you give that progress will be made towards Ceara having a second campus, so that we do not see a repeat of the issue in future academic years?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

There are two points. He rightly highlights that delay, which was caused by a live cable being identified. As regards trying to resolve the issue in that example, the modular accommodation has been constructed off-site and is ready for installation once the site is fully prepared. The contractor has indicated a projected completion date of 5 December, but the Education Authority is actively working to accelerate the programme to get progress in advance of that date.

As regards a new build, the Member will know that, only last week, we had a statement around special educational needs capital investment. The EA has produced detailed plans in which we have mapped out the provision that every special school needs. That is before the Executive as part of the 10-year plan for investment. It is through that long-term approach to investment that we will be able to address the capacity issues that the school that the Member referenced is dealing with; indeed, schools across all Members' constituencies face capacity challenges.

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

Minister, it is important that we mitigate all the delays where possible. Will you outline why specialist provision accommodation is delayed?