Northern Ireland Assembly, 4 November 2025

443 contributions from 60 members. The official report.

Members' Statements

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I rise to mark Occupational Therapy Week 2025, which provides us with the opportunity to celebrate the vital and far-reaching contribution of occupational therapists across our health and social care system. Whether it is helping someone to regain mobility after injury, supporting a child with developmental challenges or enabling an older adult to live safely at home, their work is invaluable. It is about giving people independence and a good quality of life.

As you will all be aware, occupational therapists are central to improving hospital discharge processes, facilitating timely rehabilitation and strengthening community-based care. Their work spans a range of diverse settings, including in the home and in education and mental health facilities. The challenge, for them and us, is that there are simply not enough of them to meet the growing need in our community. I commend the Royal College of Occupational Therapists for launching its first workforce strategy action plan in January of this year. The plan sets out a clear and ambitious vision for the future of the profession. Cuireann sé i gcuimhne dúinn go mbaineann fíordhaoine le gach staitistic agus páipéar beartais, daoine lena bhfuil a gcaighdeán beatha ag brath ar thacaíocht thráthúil, oilte chomhbhách ó theiripeoir saothair.

[Translation: It reminds us that, behind every statistic and policy paper, there are real people whose quality of life depends on timely, skilled and compassionate support from an occupational therapist.]

As we celebrate this week, I call on the Minister of Health to prioritise strategic workforce planning. We must ensure that occupational therapists are equipped to meet future demand, supported in their development and recognised for the transformative impact that they have on individuals, families and our communities. Nuair a dhéanaimid infheistíocht sa lucht saothair againn, déanaimid infheistíocht i neamhspleáchas, i ndínit agus i ndeis ár bpobail — díreach na rudaí a ligeann do dhaoine togha saoil a bheith acu.

[Translation: When we invest in our workforce, we invest in independence, dignity and opportunity for our people — the very things that allow people to live their best lives.]

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

This year's Royal British Legion Poppy Appeal was officially launched on Thursday 23 October. Many of us will wear a poppy proudly in memory of the fallen of our nation and for the future of the living. The sale of remembrance poppies and donations enable practical, financial and emotional support to be given to our armed forces community. I wear my poppy with pride.

Last week, I was made aware of a sinister threat to poppy sellers at Tesco in Newry. The faceless group behind the threat called on Tesco to:

“immediately remove such offensive displays, otherwise local republicans may have no choice but to seek to take action to ensure they are removed”.

That is disgraceful. Online intimidation is disgraceful. All intimidation is absolutely disgraceful. Newry city was the scene of many shocking and heinous attacks during the Troubles in Northern Ireland. Those attacks resulted in the murder of two British Army soldiers, one member of the British Territorial Army and four members of the Ulster Defence Regiment. Three former members and 21 serving members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary also lost their lives to terrorists. The humble poppy pays tribute to all of them.

To those poppy sellers in Newry, volunteering their time to support that valuable charity and its work to support our armed forces community, I say, "Thank you. We stand with you". I thank all the poppy sellers across the country for their dedication, and, of course, I thank our armed forces for their selfless service to us all. The Members on this side of the House will always remember those who fought in service of our country and those who died in defence of our freedoms and way of life. We will stand up for everyone's right to sell a poppy without the fear of intimidation. We wear our poppies with pride.

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

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr Speaker, I had the pleasure of attending the final plenary session of the second Youth Assembly on Saturday past, and I know that you were also there. I take this opportunity to recognise the dedication and hard work of everyone involved.

At Saturday's event, the Youth Assembly Members launched their legacy report, which chronicles their extensive work from 2023 onwards. The legacy report is a testament to the dedication and engagement of the Youth Assembly Members. They have played a significant role in shaping policy and debate across a wide range of issues. The depth and breadth of the Youth Assembly's involvement is highlighted by its collaboration with the Justice Committee on the Justice Bill; its input to the Education and Economy Committees during the independent review of education; and its valuable perspectives on the Dilapidation Bill, delivered to and through the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee. The Youth Assembly also engaged on and addressed a host of other issues, including the plight of young carers. Such a broad remit across all Departments truly demonstrates the scope of the Youth Assembly Members' understanding and why they are held in such high regard as credible, articulate representatives of young people in Northern Ireland. That important legacy report has been provided to every MLA and is also available online. I encourage everyone to take time to read it, as it offers a unique insight into the achievements and perspectives of our Youth Assembly Members.

I look forward to seeing what those remarkable young people will go on to achieve. I also look forward very much to working with the 90 newly recruited Members for the 2025-27 mandate. That new group reflects the diversity of our society, with Members coming from every constituency across Northern Ireland. We must always recognise and commend the hard work, commitment and enthusiasm of those young people. They have succeeded in their Youth Assembly roles while juggling demanding school or college schedules, exams and extracurricular activities. I also pay tribute to the dedicated and enthusiastic team of Assembly officials who have supported and encouraged our Youth Assembly since its inception.

I am deeply impressed by the increase in confidence and contribution that I have observed amongst the Youth Assembly Members. Their efforts should never be taken for granted, and they should be celebrated by us all. I wish all outgoing and incoming Youth Assembly Members every success for the future.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I am probably not supposed to, but I endorse all of that.

Diana Armstrong (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I commend the outstanding achievement of four pupils from Enniskillen Royal Grammar School, Conor Phair, Mackenzie Wilson, Jensen Lindsey and Alfie Thompson, who were recently crowned overall winners of the 2025 ABP Aberdeen Angus Youth Challenge. The four young County Fermanagh farmers claimed the top spot, competing against 20 teams across Northern Ireland.

Since they entered the competition in September 2024, it is safe to say that the boys were kept busy. On qualifying for the final, they received five calves from ABP Food Group to rear through to finishing. They went on to receive skills development in the beef industry on a 12-month programme, winning a £1,000 cash prize for their school at the end of it. As part of the challenge, the boys developed a project called "One Health: The Link Between Animal, Human and Plant Health", which tackled the critical issue of soil sustainability. They developed a soil analysis results guide to simplify complex data for farmers, distributed it to local vets, marts and agri-stores and hosted a "Healthy Soil, Healthy Future" conference, which raised an impressive £4,120. In total, the boys raised over £6,500 for Air Ambulance NI and Rural Support, which shows just how education and agriculture can come together to deliver real-world impact in the community.

I commend not only the boys but Ruth Moore, their College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE) adviser, and Enniskillen Royal Grammar School itself. The school fielded a total of three teams, with each reaching the semi-final stage. All three teams have done their school and County Fermanagh proud. It is clear that we have a strong, vibrant agriculture sector in Fermanagh and South Tyrone. Those pupils represent the next generation of farmers and rural leaders who have been equipped with knowledge and the drive to make a difference. Their success reminds us of the importance of investing in rural education and supporting initiatives that help young people to grow and make their mark in the agri-food industry. I trust that all Members will join me in congratulating the Enniskillen Royal Grammar School team on this remarkable achievement. The boys, their teachers and their families have done their school, their county and Northern Ireland proud.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I congratulate my home club, Cumann Naomh Treasa Loch Mhic Ruairí, on winning its first ever Tyrone senior football championship last Sunday. The game against Trillick and, indeed, the path to the final were extremely competitive and nail-biting but played in the best of spirits.

Our club was formed in 1972, so it is still relatively young. We spent most of those years playing in junior or immediate football, so to win a senior title in one of the most competitive counties in Ireland is a massive achievement of which I and countless others are very proud. The scenes when the lads returned home to the lough last Sunday evening were something to behold, and, of course, the celebrations continued for a number of days. That included when the Madden Raparees, who won the Armagh championship, arrived in Loughmacrory on Tuesday evening. Our two clubs are for ever connected through the Grimley brothers, one of whom plays for our club and two of whom play for their home club in Madden. That family, more than any, deserves great achievements such as this following the harrowing tragedy that it has endured.

Loughmacrory clubman and local historian Seamus Mullan penned the history of our club in a book called 'Making Our Own Heroes'. That title is a most fitting description of how the lads who make up the team and the panel are seen in our community: grounded, modest and disciplined. Our children need look no further than that group of players for role models. I am certain that that is the case for every GAA club across Ireland.

I pay tribute to Trillick, who really put it up to Loughmacrory in the final, in what was a tough physical encounter but was played in the best of spirits. I recognise that this has been an emotional year for Trillick, especially since the passing of its esteemed colleague Jody Gormley, whose spirit lives on among that team. I was delighted to see the club win the Tyrone league title at the weekend.

After the game last Sunday, Loughmacrory clubman Ciaran Meenagh said that, for 20 years or more, he stood in the stand or terrace in Healy Park on county final days hoping for even one day in the sun to see the lads in amber and black walking behind the band. That wish has come true, and it is due to decades of hard work and dedication. I sincerely hope for many more county titles to follow. Well done to Loughmacrory senior team, the lads from the lough, and good luck against Kilcoo in the Ulsters this Saturday.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

I rise to outline our opposition to the public health Bill, which the Minister has now withdrawn and on which he has told his officials to go back to the drawing board. First, I state clearly that no one doubts that public health legislation that dates from 1967 should be revised and that that should be done as soon as possible and that it should be up to date. We must also ensure that it tackles the issues of today. However, the public health Bill did not meet our criterion for such a Bill, which is that it strike a fair balance between fulfilling public health objectives and defending personal liberty as the cornerstone of a democratic society.

We are clear that sweeping powers should not be handed to the Minister of Health to impose restrictions that would directly impact on private and family life, education, employment and movement. Having lived through the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic, we understand that such powers and the lockdowns that they enabled led to major social and economic disruption, had serious impacts on personal health and derailed the educational and emotional development of many children and young people. In particular, we will continue to reject mandatory vaccination or plans to compel citizens to undergo any form of medical treatment against their wishes. Any future public health framework for Northern Ireland must be underpinned in law and practice by the principle of informed consent. I am glad that we are going back to the drawing board on the legislation, and I urge the Minister and his Department to ensure that the principles that I have outlined are fundamental to any new public health Bill.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Today marks the 75th anniversary of the European Convention on Human Rights. That charter was born out of the horrors of World War II, with the United Kingdom playing a leading role in setting minimum standards by which Governments across Europe agreed to abide. That improved respect for human rights across Europe. No signatory state has instituted the death penalty for 25 years, and the convention has facilitated cross-border cooperation on issues of joint interest, such as crime and human trafficking.

As a Winston Churchill Fellow, I am proud to know that Churchill was a key early advocate and the spiritual architect of the European Convention on Human Rights. In the aftermath of World War II and the Holocaust, he championed the idea of a united Europe based on shared values and human rights to prevent future atrocities and resist the spread of communism. As chair of the non-governmental European Movement, he presided over the 1948 Congress of Europe in The Hague, which called for a charter of human rights and a court of justice.

Today, in Northern Ireland, the convention not only plays a pivotal role in securing the foundation of our peace process but, along with the court, was and is integral to building trust in such public institutions as our Police Service and security services after decades of conflict. The convention is explicitly embedded in the Good Friday Agreement. The agreement requires that the rights in the convention be incorporated into Northern Ireland law, a requirement met through the UK Human Rights Act 1998.

Today, I highlight the convention's role in safeguarding fundamental freedoms and its critical importance for maintaining justice and democracy not just in Northern Ireland but across the 46 member states of the Council of Europe. The convention protects the human rights and fundamental freedoms of over 700 million people. It protects the right to life; a fair hearing; respect for privacy; private and family life; freedom of expression; freedom of thought, conscience and religion; and the protection of property.

The charter prohibits torture, inhuman and degrading behaviour and punishment through slavery or forced labour; the death penalty; arbitrary and unlawful detention; discrimination in employment and in the rights and freedoms that are set out in the convention and its protocol.

Let us today mark 75 years of the convention and remember its origins in the aftermath of World War II and the rights and freedoms that it protects.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Céim stairiúil chun cinn don Ghaeilge, dár bpobal agus dár n-oidhreacht chomhchoiteann a bhí i gceapachán an choimisinéara teanga an tseachtain seo caite. D'fhógair Oifig an Choiste Feidhmiúcháin an tseachtain seo caite go rachadh Pól Deeds i gceann oibre mar choimisinéir nua sna seachtainí seo amach romhainn. Is geal liom an ceapachán seo, ceapachán a comhaontaíodh in Ré Nua, Cur Chuige Nua sa bhliain 2020.

Is bunchloch faoin reachtaíocht nua teanga atá againn ceapachán an choimisinéara, 20 bliain ó tugadh gealltanas ar dtús faoi Acht Gaeilge a thabhairt isteach. Tá rath agus bláth ar an Ghaeilge ar fad. Daingneofar agus neartófar an fás agus an fhorbairt sin le ceapachán coimisinéara. Beidh ról tábhachtach, lárnach aige, agus beidh dualgas air gearáin ón phobal a fhiosrú faoi údaráis phoiblí nach ndéanann de réir na gcaighdeán nua teanga.

Tá an Tuaisceart ar thús cadhnaíochta in athbheochan na teanga: chríochnaigh Oireachtas na Samhna Dé Domhnaigh, féile theanga a bhí ar siúl i mBéal Feirste; beidh Ard-Fheis Chonradh na Gaeilge agus Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann ann i mBéal Feirste fosta. Is imeachtaí iad sin a bhfuil an Ghaeilge fite fuaite iontu, imeachtaí ina léirítear agus ina gcuirtear saibhreas ár gcultúir agus ár dteanga chun cinn.

Tá sé thar am coimisinéir a bheith ceaptha ag an stát le forbairt na teanga a stiúradh, a neartú agus a chinntiú. Strácáil na nGael agus feachtasaíocht pholaitíochta le 50 bliain anuas is bunsiocair leis an cheapachán. Gairim sibh as bheith chomh righin, dochloíte, dianseasmhach. Ba cheart eang a chur sa mhaide mullaigh toisc an ceapachán seo á dhéanamh. Guím gach rath air agus ar an Dr Katy Radford agus ar Lee Reynolds ina bpoist nua. Go n-éirí libh uilig.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

As chair of the all-party group on stroke, I am delighted to mark World Stroke Day, which fell on 29 October. There is an event today in the Long Gallery at 12.30 pm, and I hope that as many Members as possible can come along to it.

I want to highlight the impact and magic of modern medicine and how it can transform lives here. There are over 41,000 stroke survivors in Northern Ireland, and someone here will have a stroke every two hours. Many people will recover thanks to our skilled and dedicated specialist stroke staff, including consultants and nurses, who work across the entire stroke pathway to provide expert care in acute stroke units. After hospital discharge, we have speech and language therapists, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and support recovery counsellors who offer much-needed psychological, physical and emotional care long after a stroke has occurred.

I want to focus on one key aspect of stroke care: thrombectomy. A thrombectomy is a mechanical procedure that, if carried out on eligible stroke survivors in a timely manner, can save brains, save money and change lives. Some of the most powerful stories about stroke survivors whose lives have been transformed by that treatment have been captured in a documentary entitled 'Thrombectomy: Restoring Life' by Harry Bateman, a local film-maker. As chair of the all-party group on stroke, I am proud to sponsor the event today, which will highlight that video. We have had a preview of it. The film has an emotional impact, and it should be highlighted, particularly those families who support stroke survivors.

However, with only 4·3% of stroke survivors receiving a thrombectomy last year, we are still falling short. At least 10% of stroke patients are thought to be eligible, meaning that many are missing out on that life-changing treatment. The only way to ensure that every eligible patient receives a thrombectomy is by providing a 24/7 service. That was committed to by many parties, and, in the stroke action plan published in June 2022, the Department of Health committed to delivering such a service by the end of 2024.

We know that budgets are tight and services are strapped, but we must move to prevention in order to save. That is the magic of medicine. Medicine and science have evolved. They can eradicate disease, help to speed up recovery and take the strain off our health service, so we must invest. We must ensure that the over 100 people who missed out on thrombectomy services last year do not miss out again.

I invite Members to the event in the Long Gallery today to meet some of the survivors and hear their stories.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Last week, the deputy First Minister and I were delighted to host the aerospace, defence and space council in Northern Ireland. It was a vital opportunity for us to showcase the industries that are at the very heart of Northern Ireland's economic strength and innovation. In every corner of Northern Ireland, world-leading companies are designing, manufacturing and maintaining the technology that keeps the United Kingdom and its allies safe. From advanced aircraft companies and cutting-edge defence systems to cybersecurity expertise, Northern Ireland's contribution to that vital sector is something that we should all be proud of. Already employing around 10,000 people and worth over £2 billion to our economy, the sector is set to grow even further, with last week's news of defence contracts being awarded to Northern Ireland and a defence growth deal of £250 million.

Those industries are not just about national security; they are engines of economic opportunity. They provide long-term careers for our young people, attract inward investment and sustain local communities. This success is a clear demonstration once again of Northern Ireland's place in the United Kingdom, giving us access to a national defence programme, shared expertise and a scale of investment not seen anywhere else. Yet, while Invest Northern Ireland's report recognises the importance of the defence sector, the Economy Minister seems intent on undermining it. Since taking up her role as Minister for the Economy, she has failed even to meet the ADS Group, which is the very organisation representing our aerospace, defence and security sectors. Instead, she issued a politically charged written ministerial statement that overstepped her authority and risked damaging confidence in the sector. That will come as no surprise because the self-proclaimed "First Minister for all" described recent investment as "incredulous" and, indeed, was unavailable when the Bank of America came to Northern Ireland to announce thousands of new jobs. That is why this party has acted. I pay tribute to the Ulster Unionist Party and the Traditional Unionist Voice, which have ensured that we have secured the 30 signatures required to call in to the Executive the disgraceful decision by the Minister for the Economy. While others talk this country down, these Benches will always turn up, stand up and proudly fly the flag for Northern Ireland.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

The risk of political policing in Northern Ireland remains current, and that is a risk from Sinn Féin, which is continuing to interfere in policing in this country. I revealed last week that Sinn Féin was demanding — I see that its Members cannot look up, probably in shame — that PSNI officers not carry their firearms into meetings, community meetings and Sinn Féin offices. That is not only dangerous, putting an invidious pressure on our officers, but represents a breach of policing by consent and the very nature of democratic policing. No political party can interfere with the operational independence of our police officers, let alone a party with the history of Sinn Féin. I revealed that last week, and I have written to the Chief Constable so that he makes a clear direction that that does not happen again and that his officers are told to resist such approaches. This morning's 'Nolan' show revealed that that is routine practice in west Belfast. That is shameful. I want to hear what the Policing Board members say about that in the course of the rest of the week.

It is clear to me, however, that, since Sinn Féin joined the Policing Board in 2007, it has tried to control, coerce and manipulate police officers. After Gerry Adams was arrested, Bobby Storey stood up and said very clearly, "Hands off our party leader". Sinn Féin tries to create a chill factor every time that the police enforce a law against its community or against one of its own. I have heard the pressure and the lobbying, and I have had the phone calls, and I never succumbed to it. The previous Chief Constable lost his job because two senior members of Sinn Féin told him to suspend an officer who was entirely innocent and threatened that, if he did not, they would call for his resignation on the 'Sunday Politics' show a few days later.

That is what we are dealing with. This time, however, it is junior constables who are being manipulated, coerced and controlled. I will be eternally vigilant to the attempts of that party to control and manipulate our police officers. I can tell you that they trust me and will bring those issues to me if they feel that no one else is listening. I will hold you to account. You have a long way to go on policing. It is time that you took the final step and signed up to normal, democratic policing and stopped trying to use your influence to intimidate, bully and coerce our police officers day and daily in their jobs. You are politicians like anyone else. The army is gone, and you have no more threats. I will ensure that the PSNI stands up to your bullying and your pressure.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Mr Gaston, you have a couple of minutes.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Over recent weeks, concerns have been brought to my attention regarding vandalism in Parliament Buildings. It is behaviour that would disgrace any workplace, never mind the seat of the Government. I refer specifically to the deliberate flooding of the toilets in this Building. On one occasion, I discovered taps intentionally left running with the sink blocked, leaving the floor saturated. On speaking directly to our hard-working cleaning staff, it became clear that that was not an isolated incident.

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

To get clarity, I tabled a question for written answer to the Assembly Commission, and the response confirmed the scale of the problem. There have been multiple deliberate flooding incidents in the past year alone. Those occurred on 14 January, in the first-floor ladies' toilets beside room 144, and on 19 May, in the second-floor male toilets beside room 282. On 14 October, there were two separate incidents in the same male toilet beside room 282. On 16 October, there was another incident in the same male toilet. On 20 October, there was an incident in the third-floor male toilets beside room 368.

[Interruption.]

The members of the Alliance Party and the SDLP may laugh and sneer at my raising this issue, but I will stick up for our hard-working cleaners in this place, because somebody is deliberately flooding the toilets. It is childish vandalism, and it needs to stop.

[Interruption.]

I am glad that you find it so funny, Mr McCrossan.

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

There are bigger issues.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Absolutely. There are bigger issues, but that is happening in this place, which is the seat of the Government. That is what is going on. It is not happening in public areas but in areas that are accessible only to pass-holders: MLAs and their staff, and Assembly staff. Such behaviour is disgraceful —.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Please draw your remarks to a close, Mr Gaston.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

It is shameful waste of public money —

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you, Mr Gaston.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— and I am disappointed that there are MLAs here who think that that is funny.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you, Mr Gaston.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

It is childish vandalism —

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Timothy.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— and our cleaners have to clean it up.

[Interruption.]

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Excuse me, ladies and gentlemen. Let us have a bit of order and decorum here. We have a Minister here who wants to make a statement.

Ministerial Statement

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

The Speaker has received notice from the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they must be concise in their questions. This is not an opportunity for debate, and long introductions will not be allowed. Over to you, Minister.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to address the Assembly on the outcome of the independent review of environmental governance in Northern Ireland and to set out my proposed way forward.

I have always firmly believed in an independent environmental protection agency (EPA) for Northern Ireland.

For too long, our environment and nature have suffered from a lack of robust protections, and we are all seeing the consequences of that. This short, sharp and comprehensive review has provided the foundations for building a brighter future for our environment. We cannot continue to dodge this critical issue. Now is the time for action: the people of Northern Ireland expect and deserve it.

As we all know, Northern Ireland continues to experience significant environmental pressures. For example, there are water-quality concerns, including the widely recognised issues that are affecting Lough Neagh, and ongoing remediation challenges at the Mobuoy illegal waste site. Those pressures are compounded by the impacts of climate change, which is driving more frequent extreme weather events, biodiversity loss and soil degradation. Alongside those pressures, we continue to face challenges in tackling waste crime, improving air quality, restoring habitats and species, and delivering on our commitments to a circular economy. Taken collectively, those issues underline the urgent need for more effective governance to protect our environment and restore public confidence and trust in our environmental protection arrangements.

As Members are aware, 'New Decade, New Approach' included a clear commitment from the parties that were entitled to form an Executive that, as part of a Programme for Government, a returning Executive would establish an independent environmental protection agency. Our latest Programme for Government commits the Executive to complete a review of environmental governance and commits me, as AERA Minister, to present a proposed way forward to the Executive for consideration and agreement.

In November 2024, I appointed an expert independent panel, led by Dr Viviane Gravey of Queen's University Belfast and supported by Diane Ruddock, a National Trust retiree, and John McCallister, a representative and member of the Ulster Farmers' Union. The panel was tasked with carrying out a review of environmental governance in Northern Ireland to assess the adequacy of the current arrangements and provide recommendations for improvement for my consideration. I put on record my sincere thanks to Viviane, Diane and John for carrying out that extensive and complex review as expert individuals.

The panel launched a call for evidence in January 2025. A total of 590 responses were received via Citizen Space and email. That was supported by three public events and substantial in-depth interviews with regulators, regulated parties and broader stakeholders across Northern Ireland, Great Britain and Ireland. The panel published its final report on 21 October 2025.

The report is extensive and detailed, and it provides a clear evidence-based case for change. It is unequivocal in its conclusion that the current environmental governance system is not fit for purpose and is failing everyone. The crisis in our environment is also a governance crisis, thus governance reform is a critical part of the solution.

The panel has set out a practical road map for reform that is structured around four key themes: clarity and coherence; meaningful independence; better compliance; and transparency and accountability. Those themes underpin 32 recommendations, which, when taken together, aim to deliver a governance system that the panel considers to be robust, trustworthy and capable of meeting Northern Ireland's environmental obligations and restoring public confidence.

At the heart of the panel's recommendations is the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency in Northern Ireland as a non-departmental public body. Its functions would include oversight of air and water quality, waste management, nature and biodiversity and the marine environment. In the panel's view, that model provides the right balance of independence, accountability and deliverability, ensuring clear separation between policymaking and regulation whilst aligning with best practice from across these islands. I agree.

Northern Ireland is an outlier, as we are the only region in the UK and Ireland that does not have an independent environmental protection agency. That position is simply not sustainable. I recognise, as does the panel, that independence is not a silver bullet that will improve environmental governance in Northern Ireland, but it is a critical part of the overall governance system. Establishing an independent environmental protection agency is about much more than just aligning with what other regions are doing.

I assure Members that, as a non-departmental public body, the new agency will still be accountable to the Assembly, and its functions and the legislative framework within which it would work would be determined by Ministers and approved by the Assembly. Crucially, though, it would be overseen by an independent board that is led by a non-executive chair and would have full operational independence in how it discharges its functions. That would ensure that a new EPA would be able to carry out its regulatory, advisory and enforcement duties without political interference. Effective functional independence is important in building trust and confidence in the body's work.

Now is a pivotal moment for us all: we should establish an independent environmental protection agency, as recommended by the independent panel. We are witnessing more and more visible signs that our environment is struggling, and we need to take the decisions now to change course. The costs of inaction are simply too great. We should look no further than Lough Neagh or the illegal dump at Mobuoy, which, as you will know, could cost hundreds of millions of pounds to resolve. Failed environmental governance and non-compliance with environmental law result in huge costs to the public purse, so we must invest now to make savings in the longer term.

Inaction also leads to increasingly degraded ecosystems, public health risks, negative impacts on people’s livelihoods and lost opportunities for sustainable growth. Without decisive reform, Northern Ireland will continue to fall behind in meeting its environmental obligations and the public will continue to pay the price in quality of life and economic resilience. Restoring trust and confidence in environmental protection is crucial for the economy and for our communities. Better and more accountable regulation will create a fair and level playing field for all.

I therefore intend to seek the support of my Executive colleagues to agree, in principle, to the establishment of an independent environmental protection agency in Northern Ireland as a non-departmental public body of DAERA. That agreement in principle would allow us to move swiftly to look in greater detail at the powers, functions and status of the new body, together with the financial implications. Following public consultation, firm policy proposals will be brought back to the Executive to enable my Department to draft and implement the legislation needed to set up the new non-departmental public body.

The report also makes a number of recommendations that fall within the remit of my Department. In parallel with our work to prepare for an independent environmental protection agency, I will work with my officials to take forward those recommendations. Some aspects already align with work that is ongoing or our own plans for improvement.

As I have said on many occasions, there are no quick fixes to the significant environmental challenges that we face today. Environmental governance is no different. However, I am fully committed to strengthening environmental governance in Northern Ireland, improving public confidence in our arrangements and, ultimately, reducing environmental degradation. I hope that Members will support me in seeking to establish a new independent environmental protection agency in Northern Ireland as a non-departmental public body of DAERA. I will, of course, update Members as the work progresses and following Executive consideration.

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

It is nearly two years since you were appointed as Minister of this Department, four years since the Alliance Party promised an independent environmental protection agency and six years since the Executive parties agreed to it in 'New Decade, New Approach', yet all you have to show today is another review telling us what we already know. When it comes to reviews, this place could teach Tripadvisor a few things.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Daniel, is there a question?

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

We do not need another report, Minister, to tell us that Lough Neagh is dying; we can see that with our own eyes. The simple question is this: when will the talking stop and the independent environmental protection agency finally be established, not in principle or in theory but in practice?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I have set out today the process that I am taking forward. Since we left the EU, we have a very different environmental landscape. I need support, in principle, for an independent environmental protection agency. Now is the time for a decision on that. Once we get that agreed — hopefully — we will move to consultation. The cooperation of the Assembly is absolutely critical. If Members believe in this, they need to work with me on its implementation, so that we can have it legislated for by the end of the mandate.

I am up for doing it. You mentioned timescales. We lost two years of this mandate. You know why that was: it was not because of the Alliance Party or your party; it was because one party decided to walk away, which has constrained an awful lot of what we do in this place. I work night and day to deliver in my Department, within a constrained mandate and budget situation. However, I am determined to make progress on this, and Members need to back me.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for the advance notice of the publication of the report. The Committee will consider it for the first time this week.

The Minister has said that the agency will be a non-departmental public body. What specific vires or terms of reference does the Minister see the agency having to ensure that there is no crossover or duplication of work with agencies that already exist and that it will not be seen as another barrier to environmentally compliant and sustainable planning applications?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

The report, which is excellent, was written by three respected individuals, who came forward as individuals to look at the issue. They have outlined what the functions of the independent environmental protection agency should be, and those functions relate to air and water quality, waste management, nature and biodiversity, and the marine environment.

One of the key benefits of this — there are many — relates to planning applications. The speed at which the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) turns around responses is not good enough. We need an independent environmental protection agency that is properly funded and properly resourced so that we can turn around responses to planning applications and allow people to move forward on all the issues about which they are asking for advice from the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. That will be critical. It will be absolutely fundamental that we are able to change that and turn it around. We have many non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) in Northern Ireland. It is lost on me why anyone would oppose this.

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his statement. We absolutely support the creation of an independent environmental protection agency.

Minister, the review recommends developing memorandums of understanding and formal collaboration on North/South and east-west bases to improve coherence and share best practice. What discussions has the Minister had with his counterparts in the South regarding a joint, cross-border funding mechanism to support the environmental governance reforms and new regulatory structures recommended in the review?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Member for her support. It is appreciated. The report sets out quite a lot when it comes to the independent environmental protection agency and the other issues that the Member has highlighted. We need to have much more joined-up working between Departments and agencies in Northern Ireland but, when it comes to regulators, also on North/South and east-west bases. That is why those memorandums of understanding are set out. There is work that I need Executive approval for, but there is other stuff that we can take forward as a Department. We should do that, because the environmental challenges do not stop at the border. We need to cooperate. We already do that through established functions and structures, but we need to solidify that through memorandums of understanding. I am keen to work with officials to take that forward.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his statement. If the Department cannot adequately fund what is currently in place, how can we expect a new, additional organisation to be properly funded to carry out its functions? Further to that, what safeguards did the panel suggest should be established to prevent the mission creep seen with other independent bodies established through statute? The Equality Commission and Ashers case comes to mind in that regard.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Right. When it comes to funding, the independent review clearly sets that out. I will quote from it:

"The enabling legislation to establish the NDPB should protect against these risks" —

one of the risks is reduced funding —

"as is the case with other recent legislation, including the UK Environment Act 2021."

That is an important recommendation.

The other issue is in relation to accountability. There is a recommendation in the review that I have passed on to the Speaker about the scrutiny mechanisms of the Assembly in regard to the non-departmental public body. That has merit as well.

On the linkage to Ashers, I am lost, to be honest.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement. In the Minister's opinion, what has the cost been to our environment of previous inaction on establishing an independent environmental protection agency? I ask that in the context of some in the SDLP, for example, forgetting that that party held the brief before and did not deliver on that.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

The cost of inaction and the lack of efficient and robust protections for our environment is substantial. The cost of remediation on the Mobuoy site could be between £100 million and £700 million, and, this year, my Department is spending over £17 million on the crisis at Lough Neagh. I could continue. The business case is very clear. We cannot allow ourselves to get into the same situation again. We also need to restore people's trust and confidence in environmental protection, because it is at an all-time low and we have to turn it around. I am setting out a way forward to do that.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Minister, thank you for the statement. You know that I have raised issues in my constituency with you many times, particularly the issues with odours and air pollution in Killeeshil and Granville. I have also raised the issue of an independent agency. Can you assure those communities that the agency will have the teeth to address those issues and will work with those communities to ensure that they can live with sound air quality?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, Colm. I have a couple of things to say. First, I thank all the staff who work in the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. I feel extremely privileged to work with them. I was with them this morning at an event on invasive species, and I will be with them throughout the week. They are good staff, they are working really hard under significant resource constraints, and I am very grateful to them.

I have set out the resourcing issue. Ultimately, it is about the budgets that are allocated, but we need to have mechanisms in place to call it out if the environment agency, as a non-departmental public body, is being underfunded.

One of the other issues is that, under the legislation, the penalties available to the agency would be set by the Assembly. That will not be a silver bullet. Ultimately, political leadership will be required here to ensure that sufficient deterrents are in place and that the environmental protection agency, as an independent non-departmental public body, can use the proper enforcement mechanisms. It is really important that we give it teeth.

I am progressing a consultation on the fisheries and water environment Bill. When I bring that to the Executive, I will need their support for it. I will also need the Assembly's support to ensure that we have legislation in place to provide sufficient deterrents on the issue of water quality and in so many other areas.

Nick Mathison (Alliance, Strangford)

Minister, thank you for your statement. Will you outline in more detail the advantage of establishing an environmental protection agency as a non-departmental public body?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

The report has set out the way forward, and I thank the panel for doing that. A lot of people said to me that they wanted an independent environmental protection agency, but, when I asked, "What would that look like? What would its functions be?", they were not able to answer. The report has answered that, particularly in the context of our leaving the EU and of the different arrangements that we have.

The non-departmental public body would have not just the necessary independence but accountability, which is important. It would have specific structures, such as an independent board, and the functions that I set out. We have many non-departmental public bodies in Northern Ireland that play a valuable role; for example, the Arts Council and Sport NI. Now is the time to ensure that we end the situation whereby Northern Ireland is an outlier by not having an independent body for environmental protection.

Diana Armstrong (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Minister, thank you for your statement. You said that an independent environmental protection agency would have regulatory powers without political interference. One of the proposed themes is better compliance. How will the agency differentiate between deliberate discharge by NI Water, for example, and discharge from an old septic tank that no one knows is still working? How will it differentiate between phosphates that NI Water adds and phosphates discharged via household sources?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

One of the review recommendations, which I support, was that the independent environmental protection agency be able to set its own enforcement policy. It is important that it has that ability. That will answer a lot of your questions. If we get agreement in principle and people say, "Yes, we are on board with this. We want it" — to date, I have not had that from around the House; I am making a real effort to get support for this so that we can move it forward — we can scope out the details on the functions and the drafting of legislation.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

Thank you, Minister. Can you offer any assessment of the panel's recommendation to exit the arrangement with NI Water known as the statement of regulatory principles and intent (SORPI)?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I am on the record as consistently saying that the separate regulatory arrangement that has been in place for Northern Ireland Water since its establishment is not fit for purpose. The idea that NI Water often gets a bye ball on the pollution of our waterways is not acceptable.

I will quote from the review:

"From our engagements with key stakeholders and from our CfE"

— call for evidence —

"it is clear that SORPI arrangements between NIEA and NI Water are not working as they were designed to – they were intended to offer flexibility for NI Water to invest to address the sources of non-compliance. Instead, the lack/low level of penalties for wastewater pollution has weakened the case for sufficient investment (giving the impression that the current situation is acceptable). This creates a negative feedback loop, with NI Water prioritising investment in drinking water over wastewater as it faces a sharper regulatory edge ... (as the Drinking Water Regulator has already exited SORPI arrangements). We note that the DAERA Minister has stated publicly that the current arrangement is not fit for purpose."

The review recommends that DAERA exit the current SORPI arrangement with Northern Ireland Water. Further to that, I will bring a paper to my Executive colleagues.

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

Minister, thank you for your statement. I note that the expert panel consulted widely and that you now intend to seek the support of your Executive colleagues to agree, in principle, the agency's establishment. I also note that that agreement in principle will lead to a further consultation exercise. Minister, can you give us assurances that we will not experience an environmental Groundhog Day with the EPA, which many of us support?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

There is a window of opportunity here for us to set up an independent environmental protection agency in Northern Ireland. I need support, in principle, to do that. We will then go through the process that we are required to do, which is consultation. Sometimes I am criticised for doing too much consultation, but I am legally required to do it. We will then look to get Executive support for drafting legislation. With the Assembly's cooperation, which is critical — if people want this, they need to work with me — we can legislate for it by the end of the mandate. However, people need to put their money where their mouth is and support me in establishing the agency. There are many issues in my Department that I work night and day on. People need to understand that this is a priority for me and to support me on it.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his answers. We are all aware of the devastating impact that the pollution of Lough Neagh has had on our beautiful natural environment. Alliance has long called for an independent environmental protection agency, and that included tabling an amendment to the climate change legislation, which many Members neither supported nor turned up for. Will the Minister detail other examples of where our current environmental protections have fallen short?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

The list is endless, unfortunately, Nuala. We have Lough Neagh, Mobuoy, nature decline and issues with air quality. Northern Ireland is a laggard in the environment. Whenever I say that or look to take action, I get vilified — vilified — because people are not prepared to take difficult decisions. This is a point of decision for this place, and people need to back me on it.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome it while recognising that the matter is also an NDNA commitment. Minister, you will appreciate that there are now quite a number of organisations in the regulatory landscape, such as the Shared Environmental Service (SES), the Office for Environmental Protection (OEP), the NIEA, and there is now this new agency. Will it be important to unravel that landscape to explain to the public where precisely the functions sit in those organisations? I am thinking specifically of SES. Where will it sit in the new regulatory environment?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, Declan. The independent panel's report was useful in teasing all that out. We have a very different regulatory landscape since leaving the EU.

SES supports district councils to process applications, and I respect that. NIEA has a separate role in planning applications. That would remain largely the case in the independent environmental protection agency. It is important to respect that. The Office for Environmental Protection's oversight function will remain in place and will replace, in part, the role of the European Commission. We should not underestimate the impact that leaving the EU has had on Northern Ireland. We all know that. We see it in not only the UK economy but the environment. There have been significant impacts and a changed landscape, and I am seeking to address that.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, I entirely support the establishment of an independent EPA. It is long overdue, yet your Department seems to still be in go-slow mode. Minister, following decades of reports, commitments and promises, why has DAERA still not delivered a single ounce of accountability to those who are responsible for environmental destruction? Will the new EPA have any teeth? Why should communities believe that yet another agency will make a difference given that enforcement has not been acted on for decades?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

When you were asking your multiple questions, I was thinking about what the "S" in the SDLP stands for. I think that it is "sound bite".

Some Members

Ooh.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

When I came to this place to look for support to remove the cap on penalties for repeat polluters, your party did not support me. Who was it in Fermanagh and Omagh District Council —

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

Do your job.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

— who pushed for the return of Going for Growth? It was the SDLP, time and time again. You may turn round and pretend that you support the environment, but the reality is otherwise.

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

That is utter nonsense.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Sorry, but you are trying to turn around and do that. When I have looked for support on measures, you have not supported me. That is the truth, and sometimes the truth is inconvenient for you.

Some Members

[Inaudible.]

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Shush. Ladies and gentlemen, have a bit of decorum, please. Let us just keep it steady.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Minister, I will be upfront: I am highly sceptical of an independent environmental protection agency, as was my predecessor. In your statement, we are told:

"The costs of inaction are simply too great".

That is a self-confessed, damning indictment of inaction from the Minister's Department. How will an additional quango make any difference, apart from blowing more public money?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I set out the difference that it will make in my statement, as did the review report. If the Member does not understand that, I ask that he read it again.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome the progress. I do not doubt the Minister's industry and effort. However, where we are now, in seeking approval from the Executive, is as far as I got as a previous Minister. Hopefully, there is now a majority in the Assembly and, therefore, one would imagine, in the Executive that will support the progress that he proposes. Will the Minister outline the envisaged costings of establishing this new independent environmental protection agency?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

The Alliance Party sought to progress it via an amendment to the climate change legislation, and your party did not even turn up.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

When was that?

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

We are supporting this.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Sorry, but if you are not across the detail, that is not my problem. I set out the need for support, in principle, in regard to the agency. If we get that support in principle, we will work through the costings, but the costs of inaction are very significant. It is a no-brainer that we want to progress this.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Minister, ladies and gentlemen. When we are debating this, please make your remarks through the Chair. That is what we are trying to do. On that point, I call Mr O'Toole.

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Minister, to be absolutely clear, we are the official Opposition. We respect the fact that you want to get it done, and we acknowledge that, but our job is to hold you to account. We make no apology for that. To be very clear, we hope that your proposals pass, and we will support them. We hope that they are passed through the Assembly before the end of the mandate. However, that looks very challenging in getting Executive support and getting it through the Assembly in the requisite time. That looks highly unlikely now, so why did you and your party not make it a specific red line and a condition when you entered the Executive? That is a reasonable question. Why not?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

People outside Northern Ireland look to this place with despair when they see people who turn around and hold these institutions to ransom over issues. We are focused on delivering for the citizens of Northern Ireland and working in a power-sharing Executive. It is difficult. Believe me, working in a power-sharing Executive is hard. Your party knows that as well, because it has been in the Executive before. You have to work with your partners in government, and they are partners in government. We do not see eye to eye on many different issues, but we have to work together. That is what I have sought to do since I became Minister, and I will continue to do that. However, if people turn around and we start going back to the world of demands and whether the institutions are up or down, I despair.

I will close by saying two things. First, the Chamber causes me great concern. It is nothing more than a toxic thunderdome in its engagement. Some people love that, and I think that that is poor. Secondly, I am happy to receive analysis and scrutiny on issues, but people need to make those points on issues of substance.

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

I welcome the statement. I welcome this line:

"Inaction also leads to increasingly degraded ecosystems, public health risks"

and

"impacts on people’s livelihoods".

The people of Warrenpoint absolutely agree with that, because somebody has to wonder who under God the NIEA works for, because it is not the people of Northern Ireland. NIEA certainly does not keep an eye on the environment. I hope that this agency replaces the NIEA and that we can scrap it and get rid of it, because it is utterly useless.

Minister, will the new independent authority get cross-party buy-in and powers from other Ministers? For instance, the Department for Infrastructure looks after the ports, and, unfortunately, it is the people in areas such as Warrenpoint who lose out.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I will seek support from others on the proposal. I will say to you, Colin, that the officials who work in the Northern Ireland Environment Agency —.

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

Useless.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

No.

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

Useless. Who pays for them?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

These are officials whom I have respect for. They are part of the Northern Ireland Civil Service —

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

No.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

— and they have my support. It is important that we respect individuals who work in public services in Northern Ireland. That is what I do.

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

Cannot even answer the question.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Ladies and gentlemen, please, no. That concludes questions on the statement. Just take your ease while we change the top Table.

(Mr Speaker [Mr Poots] in the Chair)

Executive Committee Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I call the Minister of Finance, Mr John O'Dowd, to move the Consideration Stage of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill.

Moved. — [Mr O'Dowd (The Minister of Finance).]

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 is a single group of six amendments dealing with baby loss certificates; in addition to which notice has been given of opposition to clause 8 and to the schedule that concerns technical amendments relating to the registration of births and still-births by same-sex couples.

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

Clauses 1 to 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8 (Minor amendments relating to births and still-births)

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We now come to the opposition to clause 8 standing part, the six amendments and the opposition to the schedule standing part. I advise Members that amendment Nos 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive.

I call Timothy Gaston to address his opposition to the Questions that clause 8 and the schedule stand part and to address the other amendments in the group.

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The following amendments stood on the Marshalled List:

No 1: In clause 11, page 5, line 24, leave out "may" and insert "shall". — [Mr Tennyson.]

No 2: In clause 11, page 5, line 36, leave out paragraph (e) and insert—

"(3A) The regulations shall provide that no applicant may be required to pay a fee for a certificate to recognise the loss of a baby during pregnancy." — [Mr Tennyson.]

No 3: In clause 11, page 5, line 36, leave out paragraph (e) and insert—

"(3A) The regulations—

(a) may not provide for the charging of fees for a certificate (or amended certificate) or for the first copy of a certificate (or amended certificate), but

(b) may provide for the charging of fees for a second or subsequent copy of a certificate (or amended certificate)." — [Mr Frew.]

No 4: In clause 11, page 5, line 37, at end insert—

"(3A) The regulations must include provision specifying that a certificate may contain, if the applicant so requests—

(a) the name and sex of the baby and any other biographical information; and

(b) a statement by the applicant recognising the baby as a member of their family." — [Mr Gaston.]

No 5: In clause 11, page 5, line 37, at end insert—

"(3A) The regulations must provide for the issue of a certificate following a termination of pregnancy." — [Mr Gaston.]

No 6: In clause 11, page 6, line 5, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

"(5) Before making regulations under this section, a draft of the regulations must be laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Assembly.

(6) The first draft of regulations under this section must be laid before the Assembly within the period of 12 weeks beginning with the day on which this Act receives Royal Assent." — [Mr Tennyson.]

Mr Gaston had given notice of his intention to oppose the Question that the schedule be agreed.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As you pointed out, the first item on the Marshalled List is my intention to oppose clause 8 standing part of the Bill. Linked to that is my opposition to the schedule. My opposition is consistent with that of my party, a founding principle of which is support for and promotion of traditional family values. That is a founding principle of my party and one that made me choose TUV.

The schedule amends the Births and Deaths Registration (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 by inserting the term "second female parent" and replacing the words "both parents" with:

"both the mother of a child and the father or second female parent of that child".

That amendment permits me to put some important facts on the record. I believe that a child needs both a father and a mother. That is a biological reality that has held true for as long as there has been life on this planet. While, sadly, there are occasions when families break up, that does not negate the need for a father in the conception of any child.

Writing a father out of a child's life is wrong. That would be done by paragraph 6(3) of the schedule. There will be those in the House who take strong exception to my saying that. I accept that, but my convictions on such issues are what brought me to the House, and, while I am here, I will continue to stand up for traditional family values and, more important, to be directed by my faith. My convictions will not allow me to ignore the fact that the issue is contained in the Bill. Anyone who shares that belief will join me in the Lobbies later, and I will certainly welcome the company.

I have tabled amendment No 4. Through that amendment, I seek to ensure that the regulations permit the certificate, if — "if" is the key word — the applicant wishes, to include:

"(a) the name and sex of the baby and any other biographical information; and (b) a statement by the applicant recognising the baby as a member of their family."

Parents who want to name their baby on their certificate will be able do so. Parents who do not want to will not have to. Parents can add a line saying, "We recognise" — insert the baby's name — "as a member of our family", but, to be clear, only if they choose to do so. Why do that? It is because grief is personal. Some families name their baby and want the name to be in print. Amendment No 4 will allow them to do just that. Others prefer not to. The amendment is about choice, not compulsion. It turns a cold form into a living memorial to the little one whom they have sadly lost.

Amendment No 5 makes provision for a certificate to be issued:

"following a termination of a pregnancy."

I remind the House that, at Second Stage, when I mentioned the issue of abortion, Mr Blair, who occupied the Speaker's Chair at the time, interrupted me to say:

"this is not a debate on abortion, and it is not going to become one. It is a respectful debate. Members have provided some very poignant examples today. The rest of the debate will continue in the same vein and will not divert to another issue." — [Official Report (Hansard), 7 April 2025, p54, col 2].

With those comments on the record, it is important to clarify what the Bill does and whom it does not exclude. The system must allow parents who lose a baby through termination to apply for a certificate but only if they want one. There is no forced participation. There is no clinical handout, as has been misrepresented by some in the media. A woman who miscarries at 20 weeks can apply for a certificate. A woman who has an abortion at 20 weeks, perhaps due to the fact that she has been told that her child will not survive outside the womb, should be able to do the same.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. He has hit on a critical point. To be fair to the Member, it shows the intent of his amendment. Is it also the case that, in circumstances where, under the previous law, the mother's life was at risk and the baby was aborted to save the mother's life, parents can, if they wish, apply for and receive a baby loss certificate to mark and mourn the loss of that child?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for his intervention. Absolutely: it gets to the nub of what my amendment is trying to achieve. In the case that he has described to the House, absolutely —.

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

Will the Member give way?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I will in a wee minute.

Absolutely: in circumstances where a baby has been aborted because of advice that the mother's life is at risk, the mother should be able to apply for a certificate if she so wishes. Over the weekend, I read a lot of commentary in the media in which, frankly, my amendment had been misrepresented. It is wrong to do that. Let us be clear about that.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I am happy to give way.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Is the Member saying that it would be wrong to exclude from receiving a baby loss certificate a mother who has just lost her baby through abortion to protect her and save her own life?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Nobody should be excluded. It is up to the parent. It has to be choice-based. If that mother wants to apply for a certificate, she should be able to do so. Yes, some people have said, "Leave it to the regulations", but I want it to be in the Bill. I want it to be clear that, if somebody wishes — only if they wish — to apply for a certificate, they will have the opportunity to do so.

I give way to Mr O'Toole.

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

One might speculate about your reasons for referring to abortion specifically. By putting that in the Bill, rather than waiting for regulations, where every other detail of the certificates will be covered, you are separating out that one form of baby loss from all the other forms of pregnancy ending. I could go through all the many traumatic and difficult circumstances in which pregnancies are lost or ended. You have chosen to single out that one form and to leave all the others for regulations. My question is this: why? Why does that one form of a pregnancy ending have to be dragged out and put in the Bill, other than to pick that fight?

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I have a question for you, Mr O'Toole. We are talking about loss. Everyone agrees that loss matters, so why fear the clarity that my amendment would put in the Bill? It is important that it is in the Bill, especially after the comments that Mr Blair made when he was in the Chair during the Second Stage debate. We have to bring clarity to the debate. If I may say so, my amendments were tabled on 23 June, so it has not been dropped in at the last minute. The amendment was tabled well in advance. It is only the Members who have created opposition and hysteria who have made it an issue.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for giving way. I was not going to speak on the issue, but he talks about putting it in the Bill. Clause 11(2) states:

"The regulations may provide for the recognition of any loss which is not a still-birth".

That is in the Bill. It is covered. You mentioned that you are talking about loss. It is right there in black and white in front of us.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for the intervention. As I said, on the basis of the comments from the Deputy Speaker previously, it is important to have it in the Bill.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Member for giving way. This is an important discussion today about legislation that will have an impact on many people. We should have said — perhaps the Member will agree — that there is a triggering and upsetting use of language. As a former bereavement counsellor, I know that using the word "abortion" to someone who has miscarried, when it is on their medical records as a spontaneous abortion, is incredibly callous and cruel. Using such language in the Bill, when it already covers all forms of loss, is more about political point-scoring and harming women than it is about making good legislation.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I do not accept that it is about point-scoring. I have been open and honest. I tabled the amendments well in advance. The only issues that have arisen were from Mr O'Toole and from Mr Tennyson in the paper over the weekend. I have never tried to raise this as a political issue, but it is important. I felt a conviction to bring it to the Chamber, which is why I have done so. I have tried and will continue to try to be as sensitive as I can on the issue as we progress.

It is important to recognise that, for those who have had an abortion that, in some cases, they deeply regret, giving them the option to apply for a baby loss certificate would help with the process of dealing with that loss. It is cruel to deny women in either circumstance that option or to suggest that it is wrong. My amendment removes that barrier. It says, "Grief does not discriminate by cause". Importantly, it mirrors the Scotland scheme, which includes medical terminations without controversy or compulsion. The FAQ paper on the Scottish Memorial Book of Pregnancy and Baby Loss Prior to 24 Weeks states:

"Q: I had a termination. Can I apply for a certificate? A: Yes, if you wish to have a record of your loss you can apply for a certificate."

All that I am trying to do is replicate the scheme that exists in Scotland.

Every year, thousands of families in Northern Ireland lose a baby before 24 weeks, some through miscarriage, some through medical necessity and some through abortion. All of them grieve. All of them deserve dignity. My amendments do not judge. They do not compel. They include but only if requested. I urge MLAs from all parties to support my amendments — amendment Nos 4 and 5 — as acts of basic human kindness. Parents who have lost a baby, however that loss happened, should never be told, "Your grief doesn't count".

I have heard some suggest that MLAs should leave all of that to the regulations. My question is this: which of my amendments do you disagree with? I understand that there will be deep division in relation to my opposition to clause 8 and the schedule, but who is opposed to a family's including:

"the name and sex of the baby and any other biographical information"

plus:

"a statement by the applicant recognising the baby as a member of their family"

on a baby loss certificate? Who is suggesting that someone who has had an abortion, perhaps as a result of medical advice, should be denied a baby loss certificate?

I commend my amendments to the House.

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

I will speak first in my capacity as Chair of the Finance Committee, and I will then make some brief remarks in a political capacity. One of the most important issues that the Committee has considered with respect to the Bill is the immensely sensitive topics that it encompasses: death, stillbirth and baby loss.

Mr Speaker, I should take your guidance before I proceed: are we debating just Mr Gaston's amendments at this point? Is that right?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The debate is on all the amendments.

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

All of them? OK. In that case, I will give the Committee's view and move on to give a party view.

One of the most important issues that the Committee considered with respect to the Bill is the immensely sensitive topics that it encompasses: death, stillbirth and baby loss. The Committee requested evidence from a range of interested organisations and carried out a detailed online survey to which it received 40 responses from individuals, organisations and representative bodies. The responses included highly emotive personal testimony from individuals. The Committee carefully considered the views of all those who provided written evidence. On behalf of the Committee, I thank all who took the time to provide detailed evidence to inform and support the Committee in its consideration of the Bill. That was especially important in the case of this Bill, given that its provisions had not previously been consulted on, and it was important that the Committee gave that time to ensure that the process was right. On behalf of the Committee, I also thank the Department, the Forget-me-not Group and the National Association of Funeral Directors, who provided oral evidence. I single out the Forget-me-not parents who made time for us and gave very sensitive and, at times, emotional evidence. Their input was greatly appreciated.

I note that the Committee managed to complete Committee Stage well in advance of the date in the extension motion, which shows — perhaps it is a lesson to others — that Committees are capable of not exceeding updated target dates and, indeed, can view such dates as limits rather than targets.

I now refer to some general issues that were raised by members during the Committee Stage. Clauses 2 to 10 relate to the recording of deaths and stillbirths and the repeal of the temporary provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020. The Committee previously agreed a number of statutory rules made under the provisions of the Coronavirus Act 2020 that related to the recording of deaths and stillbirths. Those changes allowed the registration of deaths and stillbirths by telephone, without an informant's signature, and the electronic transfer of registration documents between the parties in the process. This Chamber subsequently approved regulations on a number of occasions. Members of the Committee were therefore well versed in the use of such provisions. The Committee's deliberations on those clauses were mostly of a technical nature to ensure the legislation's robustness. In its evidence, the National Association of Funeral Directors outlined how the arrangements were working, gave its support for the arrangements and conveyed its eagerness that they should continue in perpetuity. The Committee had no objections to that part of the Bill.

Clause 11 gives the Department the power to introduce a baby loss certificate scheme. As Members will be aware, the House has previously supported, via a private Member's motion, the introduction of baby loss certificates. It was the Committee that ensured that they were included in the Bill. There was unanimity on the Committee that such a scheme be introduced. Committee discussions therefore mostly centred on the potential for a monetary charge for a baby loss certificate. The Department confirmed to the Committee that a charge could not and would not be introduced without the approval of the House. Any potential charge would have to be introduced via subordinate legislation through the draft affirmative procedure, allowing the provisions of the statutory rule to be both debated and amended. The Committee therefore agreed to proceed without an amendment on that issue. The Committee is, however, aware of the amendments, including those on that issue, tabled to the Bill. Members, having seen the Marshalled List, will debate those today. However, the Committee did not discuss the specific amendments and therefore has not taken a Committee position on them.

The Committee unanimously supports the Bill. The ability to register deaths and stillbirths without having to attend a registration office in person is to be welcomed, and the opportunity for bereaved parents to obtain a baby loss certificate is an important step. As I indicated at Second Stage, the Committee welcomes the Bill. The Committee undertook its duty to perform scrutiny and fully supports the Bill's moving through the next stage of the legislative process towards, hopefully, Royal Assent.

I will make some brief remarks on the amendments in a party capacity. Mr Gaston has discussed his two amendments and his opposition to clause 8 and the schedule, which creates new registration rights for same-sex female couples. He will oppose the Question that they stand part of the Bill. I will take those points in turn. Obviously, my party, which believes in equality, will strongly support the Question that clause 8 stand part of the Bill. It is deeply disappointing and a regressive step to try to remove that one, small, modest, bureaucratic updating of the rules to reflect the fact that there are loving, supportive same-sex couples and families in this society. Mr Gaston is attempting to make his points today. He is entitled to his views on that. I do not prevent people having their personal views, but this is the law of the land. Once the Bill gets Royal Assent, the law of the land will be that same-sex female couples will be able to register births in exactly the same way as other families. That is a welcome step forward. It is regrettable that Mr Gaston has sought to oppose it, but I understand why he has done that.

I will move on to Mr Gaston's other two amendments. Amendment No 4 specifies that parents would have the right to request that the name, sex and other biographical details be on the certificates. There is much in that that is fine. I do not necessarily object to it, in principle, but it brings me on to a big part of the reason to oppose his amendment No 5. Both amendments are to clause 11. Amendment No 5 inserts the provision that the Department:

"must provide for the issue of a certificate following a termination of pregnancy."

Amendment Nos 4 and 5 are putting the cart before the horse, and that is before we get to the morality, as it were, of some of the language that has been used. Amendment Nos 4 and 5 are very specific designs of how the scheme would work. The entire purpose of the Bill and clause 11 is not to design down to the minutiae how a baby loss certificate scheme will work. We had very detailed discussions in Committee about whether that was advisable. We discussed it with the Department, the Minister and the Registrar General, who is in the Chamber today, and we came to the view that the appropriate thing to do is to mandate the Department to go away and design a scheme. That scheme will then come back to the Chamber via draft affirmative regulation. Therefore, the Committee will be able to scrutinise the draft when it comes back and will then be able to advise the Assembly. The Assembly will be able to amend that, if it so wishes, so that it includes any other detail, and it will then go to a vote. Before I get on to the substance of what is in those amendments, the idea that we need to design every small, fine detail of how the scheme will work is simply not accurate from the perspective of making legislation. In fact, I am not sure that it is good practice, because, once you put things in a Bill, you then, ultimately, ask why other things are not in the Bill.

I will now come on to the detail of what Mr Gaston said about termination. Clearly, there are many circumstances in which pregnancies are terminated. People have views on that, and those are discussed here. I have my strong personal views, but, clearly, there will be circumstances in which people who have experienced termination will want to avail themselves of a baby loss certificate for different reasons. There is not necessarily a need for me to go through what all those personal and medical reasons might be, but suffice it to say that, yes, there are circumstances in which someone who has had an abortion or a termination, either where it is forced on them medically or where they have had it for other reasons, may want to apply to participate in the scheme and apply for a certificate. Here is the thing: the Bill does nothing to prevent that happening. Those people are already included in the Bill, along with everybody else who suffers any form of baby loss.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

Yes, I will give way.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I understand the point that Mr O'Toole is trying to make, but cast your mind back to the Bill's Second Stage and the Deputy Speaker's remarks and his ruling during that debate. Do you not believe, based on the Deputy Speaker's comments, that clarity is needed in the Bill?

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

You seem to have a particular bee in your bonnet, if I may say so through the Chair, about something that Mr Blair said when he was in the Deputy Speaker's Chair. It is not really for me to litigate that between the two of you, and I do not know whether it has any ultimate legal effect. The point is that the Bill is drafted to be inclusive in the sense that it creates the broad mandate that a scheme is designed, and the Department will then go away and come back. The upshot of what you have just said to me is that, because of something that was said in the Speaker's Chair and a particular understanding, you have to insert that particular form of baby loss into the Bill. One might argue that, in doing so, you are excluding all other forms of loss; for example, a miscarriage that followed a car accident. In some ways, I hate to be so specific, because these are very sensitive issues. Does that have to go into the Bill? Does every single form of very traumatic, sad and very difficult baby loss have to be included? By the way, I am aware that the people who are watching this are traumatised, and have been traumatised, by baby loss, so I feel a bit flippant having to talk about it. However, since I have to explain why I am opposed to Mr Gaston's amendments, I am explaining the illogicality of them and not simply the insensitivity of them. We will be strongly opposing that. To be clear, that is not to say that I do not think that the scheme should exclude families who have experienced termination. It should, and I hope and trust that it will and that we can look at that when the scheme comes back in draft affirmative regulations. That is the place to do it. That is probably also true of amendment No 4, but that is somewhat less sensitive than amendment No 5.

I will move on to some of the other amendments. I am not sure of the status of all the other amendments or whether they are going to be moved. There was some discussion around the potential for charging for certificates. It is important to say that there was a broad view in the Committee that you would not want to see a situation in which somebody is charged for receiving one of these certificate. A practically reasonable point made by officials in evidence was that you may need some mechanism for limiting or regulating the number of certificates that can be issued to individuals. That may be the genesis of where the question of charging arose. I would like to hear from others, including the Minister, as to their position on charges, and hear assurances that they can give, before taking a final position on some of the amendments that relate to charging. Our broad view is that there should not be charging at all. If there is a very good, plausible explanation for why you need to include that provision to deal with some hypothetical situation, I will not be completely close-minded or ideological about it, but I would like to hear that during the debate — including from the Minister — before taking a final view.

I have covered most of the amendments, but not all. Notwithstanding the remarks that I have made about particular amendments, I look forward to this proceeding through to its next stage, both as Chair of the Committee and as an SDLP politician. It is hugely positive, first, that we are formally enacting these COVID-era powers and getting them on to the statute book, not in a timely way, but belatedly and eventually, and, secondly, that we are creating the provision for a baby loss certificate scheme, which is hugely important and poignant for a group of people. I hope that, as those people watch today and follow and engage in the detail of the legislation, they are not too despondent about some of the debate and they stick with it. Once we get through this stage, I hope that we will have the legislation on the statute book fairly soon.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

This Bill will ensure that changes that modernised the process for death and stillbirth registration during COVID will be enshrined in permanent legislation. Enabling the electronic transfer of documents will make the registration process for families who have suffered a bereavement easier, reduce stress and improve overall efficiency, while also still allowing people the choice of opting for an in-person process if they wish. Ensuring equality for registering births and stillbirths for same-sex female couples is also an important aspect of the Bill. Moving forward, that will mean that they are able to register in the same manner as opposite-sex parents.

The development of a baby loss certificate scheme will give families the opportunity to have formal recognition of their heartbreaking loss and send a clear message to parents who have lost a baby prior to 24 weeks that their love and grief is real and that they are not alone. During the Committee Stage, we heard directly from parents who have suffered such loss. I thank them for their courage in coming forward, sharing their experiences and helping to shape this positive legislation. Their voices must continue to be heard as we move forward. I welcome the commitment from the Finance Minister and his officials that they will continue to engage with those groups while designing the scheme to ensure that it meets their needs.

However, it is disappointing that some seek to use this as an opportunity to oppose equality for all couples and to bring amendments that focus on creating division. I remain focused on the compassionate objectives of the Bill in its existing form and the benefits that it will bring to many people, particularly grieving parents. Throughout the Committee Stage, those directly affected by loss during pregnancy made it clear that the scheme should be as accessible as possible, and it is vital that the regulations that follow from the passing of the legislation reflect that. I look forward to the Bill progressing in the compassionate manner with which it has been dealt with to date.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I am pleased to debate the legislation. It is a piece of legislation that, whilst largely procedural, is made with a spirit of compassion to help people at a time of loss. We all know that death is a part of life, but, when we are faced with it, that does not make it any easier. There are practical things that need to be done at that time. Whilst the legislation is not the usual Finance Committee work, I was proud to work alongside colleagues to bring it through. We consulted on it and heard from members of the public, funeral directors, councils and representatives from baby loss groups. I give special thanks to the Forget-me-not Group for working closely with us so that we fully understood the reach, impact and importance of the legislation and its language for those who face those difficult circumstances.

In relation to deaths and stillbirths, which are defined in legislation as babies who have died in pregnancy at 24 weeks or beyond, the temporary provisions introduced by the Coronavirus Act 2020 enabled telephone and electronic communications to support the registrations during the lockdown restrictions. They have proved to be efficient and effective and have significantly reduced the trauma for those who have suffered a loss. I am pleased that the Department has brought them forward as law. A number of clauses in the legislation today relate to recording deaths and stillbirths and the repeal of the temporary provisions in the Coronavirus Act 2020, which we welcome.

As an unashamedly pro-life party, the DUP recognises and values the life of every baby from the moment that it was formed in the womb. We believe that every loss of a baby represents the loss of a precious life. The existing law on registration makes the clear difference that babies who, sadly, pass away during pregnancies that reach 24 weeks are considered to be stillbirths and formally registered in that way and that babies who, heartbreakingly, pass away before 24 weeks do not receive that. The difference is heartbreaking.

Today, I am pleased that, through the legislation, we are bringing forward baby loss certificates to Northern Ireland to provide a way to formally record and recognise the lives of all babies lost here. We saw it brought forward in England, and it was great to be in the Chamber when, with a united voice, we supported the need for it in Northern Ireland. I thank the Minister for working with the Committee at pace to consult and bring it forward for parents here and especially for those babies who, until now, have left only footprints on the hearts of those who love them. They will now be able to have a certificate that recognises their life.

I know, as a mother, the feeling the moment you find out you are pregnant and will have a baby. You know your due date, you know what age they will be for their first Christmas, and you have hopes and dreams for that child. No matter how old the baby grows to be, the baby lived, it existed, it mattered, and it was your child. When that child passes away, your loss is huge. It is so real, and it matters.

At the Consideration Stage, I turn to speak to the amendments that have been tabled. We are content to support amendment No 1. It is notable that, in England, the baby loss certificate scheme is not enshrined in regulations. The provisions of the Bill, therefore, provide security for the introduction of the scheme in Northern Ireland. Making the act of bringing forward parent regulations compulsory for the Department will not affect the flexibility in the rest of the clause with respect to the scheme's criteria and implementation.

On amendment No 2, whilst we agree with the focus on removing unreasonable barriers to accessing the scheme, it does not seem prudent to make a provision to prohibit any fees in any circumstances, as was highlighted by the Department during the Committee's deliberations. That will particularly be the case if there is demand that exceeds the Department's expectations from those who formally wish to have their loss recognised.

Paul Frew and I tabled a compromise in amendment No 3, which would provide for a free certificate plus another free copy and permits the ability to levy a fee for a replacement, second copy or subsequent copies of the certificate. We felt that that wording struck the fair and right balance between ensuring that controls are in place for potential costs that may arise from the scheme and the need to ensure that the system is as accessible as possible for grieving parents and families, and that is our intention. We seek clarity from the Minister on how we move forward on that.

On amendment No 4, the DUP is an unashamedly pro-life party. We believe that every loss of a baby represents the loss of a precious life. In keeping with that belief, we feel that it is appropriate that the Bill provides assurances that any future scheme will afford applicants the opportunity to have their baby's identity, including name and sex, formally acknowledged.

We would be grateful if the Member who tabled amendment No 4 would elaborate on how he envisages the statement referenced at (b) in the amendment being catered for. For example, would it be provided as an annex to the main certificate? It is worth noting that the name and sex are standard but optional fields on the English certificate. Equally, we are mindful that some parents cannot or do not wish to know the sex of the baby that they have lost, particularly —.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Member for giving way. This is one part of the legislation that I am passionate about. We need to be flexible because some of us who have lost a baby will not have known their sex because they were born too soon. Having that flexibility, recognising the importance of that for parents and not forcing them to leave something blank is key.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I thank the Member for her intervention. I completely agree. Something that came through in the Committee's consultation is that we do not want to see a difference made between babies, as every one of them and their loss matter so much.

As outlined by Ms Armstrong, many parents do not know the sex of their baby because of the early loss. We must be compassionate and consider how the format of any certificate and optional fields may make those parents feel. The intention of the certificates is to recognise the life of a precious baby who has sadly passed away; it is not to cause further distress. Ultimately, the format of the certificate must be as flexible as is practical to respond to the wishes of the parents whilst recognising that the experiences and emphases of individuals will differ.

On amendment No 5, I welcome the clarity in the Chamber today from the Member who tabled it. We stand over the proposed voluntary nature of the scheme. It is consistent with our pro-life position that the loss of an unborn baby up to 24 weeks' gestation in any circumstances is recognised and covered. Where a woman has had a termination because there was a risk to her life or for any other reason, there should be space provided in the envisaged scheme to have that loss recognised, should they come to regret the decision, seek healing or seek closure but only where a parent requests it. The Member has outlined that that is his intention. I am happy to give away if he wants to clarify that.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I am happy to clarify that that is, absolutely, the intention. It is only for a mother or parent who wishes to have the certificate. We need to be clear that there will be no compulsion: the option will be there for families who want that recognition.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I thank the Member for clarifying that.

We do not support amendment No 6. The Department previously indicated its desire to lay regulations prior to the end of calendar year 2025. It is unclear where the proposed duration of 12 weeks has come from or whether it is likely to improve the timeliness of the scheme's introduction. I would be grateful if the Member who tabled the amendment would clarify whether there is any rationale for that. In the same vein, the effect of the proposed new subsection (5) of clause 11 is unclear. I would appreciate him clarifying how the procedure would differ from that currently in the clause, whereby the secondary legislation would have to be laid before and approved by the Assembly before regulations could be made.

My colleagues Paul Frew and Brian Kingston will speak in the debate, but I reiterate that I am pleased to have been able to play a small part in the process of bringing forward the legislation, which will make a real difference to the lives of so many. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, death is a part of life that we all have to navigate, and every life matters.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

Like others, I welcome the opportunity to contribute to the Consideration Stage of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill.

The loss of a baby during pregnancy can be a deeply traumatic experience for parents, but it is too often met in our society with silence or treated as though it is taboo. During the Bill's Committee Stage, we heard from parents who had experienced loss, from professionals who had supported them and from campaigners who were advocating a better approach to tackling the issue and recognising loss. I pay tribute to the women, parents and campaigners, including the Little Forget Me Nots Trust, who told their personal stories with enormous courage and selflessness in the pursuit of better.

I was struck by two things in those deliberations. The first was the emphasis on the need for sensitivity and the importance of language when we discuss such issues, because these are often triggering, difficult, painful and distressing subjects for bereaved parents. I was also struck by the degree of political unanimity in the Committee on the need to make provision for baby loss certificates. I hope that we can maintain some degree of consensus and unanimity as we move forward.

The amendments that I have tabled would build on, rather than contradict, the progressive and compassionate approach that the Minister set out in the original draft of the Bill. Amendment Nos 1 and 6 to clause 11, when read together, specify that the proposed baby loss certificate scheme must be brought forward within 12 weeks of the Bill obtaining Royal Assent. The Department has been clear throughout the legislative process that it intends to deliver the scheme within that timescale and, indeed, by the end of this calendar year, as the previous contributor mentioned. Given the delays and the many false dawns that there have been in setting up a baby loss certification scheme, it is entirely appropriate to give bereaved parents and campaigners some confidence that those commitments will be honoured and that the scheme will be subjected to no further unnecessary delay.

I recognise that including the clause with the choice of 12 months as opposed to a shorter timescale would create a level of legal risk for the Department. Therefore, I feel that it is reasonable to give the Department a little more time than it committed to at Committee Stage in order to, hopefully, ensure that the Department and the Minister feel that they are in a position to support that. I would welcome a response from the Minister in that respect.

Amendment No 2 stipulates that no charge should be levied for a baby loss certificate. That is a small but meaningful act of compassion. Fundamentally, I do not believe that any parent should ever be asked to pay simply to have their loss recognised. The Department has said that it does not intend to levy a charge. If that is the case, I hope that there will be support for the amendment to place it beyond doubt. Whilst that may be this Minister's policy intention, it would be unacceptable if, under a future Minister, baby loss certificates were used as a cost recovery mechanism or to cut departmental costs.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I thank the Member for giving way. I agree with his assessment. Does he share my concern that the Department and the Minister are saying one thing but doing the other? They are saying, "We don't want to charge for certificates, but, at the same time, we're going to have the power to charge people for them". Does the Member agree that that is doublespeak?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I agree with the Member to an extent. I can understand that the Department may look at certain hypothetical situations where they believe, for example, that the system may be abused. I do not foresee that as a realistic prospect, to be honest, but I can understand why, hypothetically, it would wish to have some powers. However, given the fact that, where schemes have operated in other jurisdictions, no charge has been applied and there have been no circumstances that necessitated a charge, I do not believe that it is necessary for the Department to take that power, if its commitment is to ensure that the certificates are free at the point of access.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. That is a very important point, which exercised the Committee. If the Department is never going to use the power, why would it have it in the first place? It would send out a strong message to everybody if we agreed to the amendment. Charging for a certificate is not appropriate, and I do not think that that is the Minister's or the Department's intent.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for that intervention.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I will indeed, yes.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

It is important for Members to recognise that we have moved out of the period in which we debated motions that have no impact: we are now writing law. When you write law, you write it for whatever circumstances might arise in future. The Department's proposal, which is the subject of a number of amendments, is that it has no intention to charge for the first certificate. However, when you write law, you have to take into account circumstances that may arise in future, where multiple copies may be required. If you do not have the powers to prevent that, you will be left facing financial consequences in a situation where you do not want to face financial consequences.

Setting all that aside, if the Department were to seek to introduce charges, it would have to bring the regulations back to the House before it could do that. Therefore, neither the Minister nor the Department has the final say: the Chamber has the final say. However, I urge Members to move beyond thinking about motions to the point where we are thinking about legislation.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I will not rise to some of the patronising comments from the Minister because, fundamentally, I disagree. I see no circumstances, Minister, in which, on this issue, it would be appropriate to levy a charge. There is a difference of perspective on that, and I respect the Minister's view that he would wish to have the ability to bring that to the Assembly in regulation. I concur with Steve Aiken that, if there is no intention to use the powers, why take them? In other jurisdictions where the scheme has been operating, circumstances have not arisen whereby charges would be required.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. He has been gracious with his time. The issue, though, is that, in every other jurisdiction it is policy. It is not regulations, and it is not legislation. We are the only place that is doing legislation and regulation on this. It is giving the Department that space, whereas, in England, they could change policy and administer a fee just like that. If anything, it gives the Department agility for a future event. Will the Member acknowledge that?

Can the Member explain what is the material difference in what he is amending through amendment No 6? The draft affirmative resolution, as the Minister said, means that this issue comes back to the Assembly and we can debate and amend the regulations at that point?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for that intervention. The subsection (5) that he refers to is the technical amendment to ensure that the Bill reads coherently when laying the requirement that the regulations must be laid before the Assembly within 12 months from the day that the Act receives Royal Assent. My understanding is that there is no substantive change, and that is certainly not the intent of the amendment; rather, it is just to ensure that the Bill reads correctly when the amendment is made.

For me, this is a fundamental point of principle. Some issues are beyond charging, and it is important to make that case. Of course, there is a difference between policy and legislation, but, with regard to the practical outworkings, no other jurisdiction has felt it necessary to make that policy change as a result of an influx of applications. There have been references to hypothetical situations: I have not heard a concrete example of where the Department would be overwhelmed or the system abused. It would be bad faith for anybody to seek to abuse such a sensitive and important process.

Amendment No 2, tabled by the Alliance Party, is preferable to the DUP's amendment No 3. I recognise that it goes some way to eliminate a charge for a first certificate or an amended certificate. It allows for charges to be levied for subsequent copies, and I have difficulty with the idea that charges could be levied if, for example, two parents separate and a copy is made for one of them. That would be an important issue for them, and they, too, would have been affected by the loss of a family member.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for taking an intervention. That is the point of that amendment and why Diane and I made it clear that the certificate would be free but the first copy of a certificate would also be free so that, if parents were estranged for whatever reason — that might even be due to them having suffered the loss of a child — they would each receive a certificate free of charge. The Department could charge for further copies if it felt it necessary.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for that clarification. However, if one of those parents loses their certificate, they would potentially face a charge to have it replaced.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Member for giving way. I appreciate that we are debating legislation, so we have more time. With regard to charging bereaved parents, the House has been kind. The child funeral fund, to which anyone who loses a child after 24 weeks of pregnancy can apply — it is not means-tested — provides money for the family to cover the cost of the funeral. However, if we charge for the baby loss certificates, we are saying to parents of children under 24 weeks that they have to pay; they are different. If we are talking about equality and about making legislation that is fair and equitable, we should not charge those parents just because they lost a child a few weeks earlier. When we think about families and their grief, we should see all grief as equal.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for her intervention. It goes to the crux of the issue. I see no circumstances in which it is appropriate to charge a grieving family for the recognition of their loss. However, if amendment No 2 is not successful, I will support amendment No 3 because it goes some way towards addressing some of my concerns. I recognise that it is an attempt to find a compromise.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I will, but I am being very generous with my interventions.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

You have as much time as you want.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I heard Mr Frew's point. Does the Member share my concern that, if a mother and father or a same-sex couple were to separate, under Mr Frew's amendment, they would not be charged for two copies, but, if a grandparent, uncle or another close relative — a third person, if you will — wanted to apply for a certificate under the legislation, and the Department decided to charge, they could be charged, which could lead to more bereavement and upset? Is the Member concerned that, if his amendment does not pass, that situation could be in play?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for that intervention. It is a concern. I appreciate what the Minister has said, and he is correct: regulations will come before the Assembly, so we will have an opportunity to scrutinise precisely how the primary legislation is implemented. We will be able to influence that. It is certainly not a foregone conclusion that that will happen, and it is important to bear that in mind, but, as a point of principle, if we do not intend to go down that road, why make provision for it at this stage?

I turn to amendment No 4, in the name of Timothy Gaston. There is nothing in the proposed content that Mr Gaston has outlined that I necessarily oppose, but I am conscious that the amendment puts the cart before the horse, in that the Department has undertaken a 12-week consultation on the content of baby loss certificates, which will be taken forward through the regulations. It would be wrong to prejudge the views of bereaved parents who have taken the time to respond to that consultation. It would be much better for us to wait in order to ensure that we reflect parents' priorities, views and lived experiences. We should take time to do that before we specify the contents of baby loss certificates. On that basis, the Alliance Party will oppose amendment No 4.

There are two ways of looking at amendment No 5. Either it is an attempt to stir a bit of a culture war and score political points or — this is the more generous interpretation; to be fair, Mr Gaston has said that this is his intention — it is to provide additional flexibility in complex and individual circumstances in which someone may have had to access a medical termination. To be clear, I absolutely favour the widest possible definition of loss, but, in this debate, we must avoid pitting the pain and trauma of one woman against that of another. Unfortunately, there have been attempts to do that in some of the contributions in this debate and previously. Fundamentally, I do not believe that the amendment is necessary because clause 11 of the Bill is clear, as Nuala McAllister said:

"The regulations may provide for the recognition of any loss"

— it specifies "any loss" —

"which is not a still-birth within the meaning of the 1976 Order."

That provides sufficient flexibility for women who experience loss to self-certify and access the certificate in circumstances that they deem to be appropriate, not those that we in the Chamber deem to be appropriate for them. We will oppose amendment No 5.

On Mr Gaston's opposition to clause 8 and the accompanying schedule, first of all, clause 8 is not about changing the contents of a birth certificate or the registration process. It is about equality in who can access the process. That is of fundamental importance, particularly in those circumstances, which the Bill seeks to rectify, where there is a same-sex female couple and one of the partners has perhaps suffered a baby loss and is experiencing pain and trauma. It is completely fair that she would wish that her same-sex female partner were able to go to the registry office to register that stillbirth on her behalf at what is a really difficult time. I do not think that it is acceptable that, simply because you are in a same-sex relationship, you are not treated with the same compassion as a heterosexual couple would be.

I heard contributions during the debate about traditional family values. It is quite callous to say that, solely on the basis of biology, a partner, be they a same-sex partner or a step-parent, is not a parent to a child. Those people may have held that child's hands as they took their first steps, held the bike as the child took off without stabilisers for the first time and may have sat night in, night out doing homework with that child. To try to reduce that relationship simply to biology or to discount it is, frankly, offensive not only to same-sex couples and step-parents but to single parents. We need to stop trying to vilify and judge others who are not like us or who do not live by our values and have a little bit more respect and compassion when it comes to diversity in our society. I am very passionate about clause 8 standing part of the Bill, and I welcome the fact that the Minister brought it forward.

That is all that I have to say. I hope that parties will support amendment Nos 1, 2 and 6, and I look forward to continuing to support the Bill as it progresses.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

The Bill has to be dealt with in very compassionate terms, and I made my points clear when I was in the Committee, particularly when we were talking with those bereaved people who were dealing with the issue. This is a deeply sensitive and very touching issue to many, many people. It is important that we get this right, and the intent of the Bill so far has largely been going in that direction.

Many Members have spoken very passionately and very clearly about their views on the amendments and the Bill. I do not want to delay Members, because much of what they said is what I would say anyhow. From our party's perspective, we will support amendment No 1 and then either amendment No 2 or amendment No 3, depending on which way they come through.

I have a question about amendment No 4. I have been in a similar situation. Proposed new subsection (3A)(a) talks about:

"the name and sex of the baby and any other biographical information".

I feel quite uncomfortable about that and about supporting it, and that is for reasons that I do not wish to go into in the Chamber. It is something that I have been particularly noted on as well.

I would like more clarity on amendment No 5, because, although I understand the sentiment that Mr Gaston and others in the Chamber expressed, I do not really get why clause 11(1) does not cover those areas, particularly 11(1) and 11(2), and how they cannot be interpreted in that way. Mr Gaston, maybe you would like to make an intervention to explain particularly how clauses 11(1) and 11(2) do not cover that — sorry; through the Chair.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Thank you very much for bringing me in. To be clear, that amendment was tabled, because, during the debate at the Bill's Second Stage, the Deputy Speaker said that abortion does not come into this. I was motivated to introduce abortion into the Bill, because it is part of the process and should be included. Given that the Deputy Speaker was very clear, I feel that the issue needs to be in the Bill.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Is it appropriate for Members to discuss a ruling that was given from the Speaker's Chair during a previous debate in the way that Mr Gaston is doing? It appears that Mr Gaston is giving his interpretation of the ruling. I know that he read out the Deputy Speaker's words, but we do not have the context of what Mr Gaston was saying at that time. In my humble opinion, in that context, a ruling from the Speaker's Chair has no determination in defining how a law is presented to the Assembly.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his point of order. My guidance on this is that Members will vote today on the substance of what is contained in the legislation and the amendments. The only thing that they should base their decisions upon is how they read that legislation and the proposed amendments. They should base their vote on that. Anything that was said, or any commentary, from this Chair should not and will not be reflected in the actual legislation and will not have any standing in law. Members, this is my guidance to you: stick very strictly to what is in the written legislation.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

I will move on to amendment No 6. With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, I would like some clarity from Mr Tennyson. In his remarks in the Chamber, I think that he said that it would be 12 months, beginning with the day on which the Act receives Royal Assent, but it says "12 weeks" in the amendment. Is it —?

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. I am happy to correct the record. I intended to say 12 weeks, as opposed to 12 months.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you. Just for a bit of clarity there.

Obviously we will not be supporting Mr Gaston's opposition to the schedule. We believe that the Bill needs to be given due consideration when it moves through to the next stage.

My final remarks are to the people, and the bereaved families in particular, who came and gave evidence to us. It was both humbling and a privilege for Committee members to hear from them.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for this legislation, and I welcome the fact that the Bill is now at Consideration Stage. The Committee has taken a good approach so far. We all see the importance of progressing the legislation and, importantly, putting it on a firm footing.

This compassionate legislation has been broadly welcomed by all those whom we have engaged with in Committee and outside of the Committee as individual MLAs. Importantly, it replaces the temporary provisions that were implemented at pace during COVID. We have listened to the lived experience of those who have suffered loss and the impact that it continues to have on them. We have also heard how recognition is an important step for many. The introduction of a baby loss certificate scheme has been welcomed across the board by all those whom we have met and taken evidence from.

I agree with other Members that clause 8 and the schedule are an important part of the Bill. In essence, they address and rectify an inequality that exists in the legislation. They will allow for couples who are unmarried or who are not civil partners to have access to the same registration process, regardless of whether they are same-sex or opposite-sex couples. I agree with keeping it as flexible as possible and not being restrictive in how people in society choose to live. That is the right thing to do, and I will oppose any Question that attempts to remove it and thus allow the inequality to continue.

Some have attempted, through the amendments, to create division and, indeed, to narrow the approach. At the Committee, I reflected on the treatment of women across the island as a result of ideology and ultraconservative views on all these issues. I warn that we have to learn the lessons of the mother-and-baby homes, forced adoptions and other issues that have impacted on women, as well as the attempts to demonise women and their wider family circle.

From the outset, the legislation was intended to cater for all those who have lost. It was to be done with compassion and, most importantly, the certificate scheme should reflect the wishes of those who have experienced that loss. The Minister has delivered on that, so I do not agree with the amendments that attempt to divert from that thrust.

On the issue of cost, the Minister has outlined from the outset — he did it at the Committee, and I know that he did it when he introduced the legislation — that the scheme would be done with compassion and that, at the initiation of the scheme, there would not be a charge when someone applies for a baby loss certificate. It was always important that the certificate scheme would sit alongside all the other certificate schemes that the Department has responsibility for.

That is why we are approaching it in the way that we are. It is good to see the Bill at Consideration Stage. I look forward to continuing engagement at Committee and with other Members in the Chamber.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I acknowledge the Minister's comment about dealing with legislation as opposed to motions. You can see a marked difference in the way that legislation and regulations are debated, rather than debating motion after motion, some of which are pointless. We should leave populism outside the door when talking about regulations and legislation. I acknowledge the sentiment that the Minister expressed. I do not think that it was crass; I think that it was meant in the right way. I am always mindful that we should be careful in how we proceed when dealing with legislation.

It is great that we have got to the Consideration Stage of the Bill. I place on record my thanks and appreciation for the work of the Committee. I have now left that Committee, but, on it, I saw teamwork on this serious issue. I acknowledge the work of and support given by the Department — the Minister and departmental staff — in listening to the Committee from the very start. To begin with, the Bill was designed to put temporary legislation on a permanent footing. That is all that it was meant to do. I pushed and pushed to get it to this stage sooner, but I acknowledge that the Department and the Minister listened to the Committee.

It has been a goal of the DUP to have baby loss certificates in place. We have been fighting for that for so many years, because we recognise that a vacuum exists for those who are in the position, which is so pressurised, of having lost a baby, especially before 24 weeks. That is why it is so important that the Department and Minister listened. By adding that to the Bill, they have completely changed it for the better. That must be acknowledged in the House.

When I first saw that the Minister had set out, in clause 11, that the Department of Finance "may" make regulations, I thought, "No, we can go further than that. We can put it in". I asked staff in the Assembly Bill Office whether we could copy and paste the legislation from England. Due to my ignorance, I had not realised that there was no legislation in England and that it has purely policy. There was no legislation to copy and paste from England from which we could start. I give credit where credit is due: the Department and the Minister are putting it in legislation. It should be acknowledged that we will, I think, be the first place in the British Isles to legislate formally for baby loss certificates. That means something, and it should mean something. When we castigate Ministers and Departments for how bad they can be, and when we say how bad this place is or how bad debate in the Chamber can be, we should also acknowledge our successes. This is one of them, and we should all applaud it and unite behind it.

I will get into the detail of the Bill and amendments. I point first to the repeal of temporary provisions, which are:

"Section 18(3) of, and Part 3 of Schedule 13 to, the Coronavirus Act 2020 (registration of deaths and still-births: Northern Ireland)".

Those provisions are being repealed. That is worthy of celebration. It is important, because the Minister could simply have let the six-month extension lapse, but he is obliterating it from legislation, historical or otherwise, and needs to be applauded for that. I was delighted to see that clause in the Bill. There are only two aspects of the entire Coronavirus Act that I see as having been fit for purpose, not causing harm and being good and positive. That is one of them. The provision was brought in because there might have been a massive wave of death registrations. That did not materialise, of course, but it made it so much easier for bereaved families, undertakers and everyone who was involved in that process. It made the process of registering deaths and stillbirths easier for them. We applaud the fact that the Bill puts that on a permanent footing, as it should have been months and years ago. In fact, I argue that we should have done it before the pandemic, but, of course, the pandemic was the necessitating factor.

The other aspect is the live links in courts, which we will discuss later today. However, when it comes to everything else in the Coronavirus Act and the way in which the Assembly, where we are now debating law, became a zombie Assembly, we should never go back to that place. It is good that we can be here and have the power to debate and vote on legislation and that the decision is not left to one person, no matter who that person is. It has taken months to go through the Bill. It has not been a case of a Minister dreaming up a harmful policy, reading it out to the Chief Medical Officer (CMO) in the morning, enacting it in the afternoon and enforcing it before midnight. That is no way to do legislation. This is the proper way.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I know that the Member is enjoying himself, but will he come back to the amendments?

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I will get back to the Bill.

I will move on to the other clauses and the amendments. I was the first person in the Chamber to raise concerns about the schedule to the Bill substituting the word "father" with "other parent". I raised that as a concern. I applaud the Minister for getting back to me in a very timely way about my concerns after the Second Reading and for sharing that information with the Committee. That is a good example of how a Department, a Minister and a Committee should work together. The process has worked tremendously well. The Minister has assuaged most, if not all, of the concerns that I had at Second Reading.

Since the Second Reading, I have learned that the harm and damage to which I was trying to allude is not in the schedule of the Bill. The issue predates the Bill in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, which is established UK law and means that a child will have only two parents. In some cases, that will be the mother and the father, and, in others, it will be the mother and a second female parent. In the circumstances in which a child has a second female parent, under the 2008 Act, the biological father is not recognised as a parent. That is the law as it stands, and it is not changed by the Bill. My grievance is with the fact that the father has been completely removed from that scenario, but the Bill does not do that. Regulation 13 in the Civil Registration Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2012, as amended by the Bill, will state that, where both the mother of a child and the father or second female parent of that child:

"attend a Register Office separately, they shall attend at the same Register Office, before the expiration of a period of 42 days from the date of birth."

At the end of that regulation, the Bill inserts the following:

"references to the 'other parent' of a child are to the child’s father or second female parent".

Therefore, the Bill does not so much remove the father as add the other parent. Due to that clarification, we are content with clause 8 and the schedule.

I turn to the other amendments that have been tabled by Timothy Gaston. We agree that the issue of termination is covered by clause 11(2), which says:

"The regulations may provide for the recognition of any loss which is not a still-birth within the meaning of the 1976 Order."

We accept that, but the Member has talked about his concerns and his sentiment in tabling amendment No 5. I honestly do not see how it would do any harm to have that it in the Bill. There is a valid point about putting the cart before the horse — I get the argument — but you could make that argument in respect of clause 11(3) in its entirety. The Department may have just left it whereby it would make regulations, but it has added stipulation 6, through which it wants to build a framework of regulations. I do not see any harm in adding to that framework, even if it gets into specifics.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. I understand the point that he is making. However, clause 11(3) states that the regulations "may" include that. The amendments from Mr Gaston state that the regulations "must" include it and, therefore, severely limit what could be done through secondary legislation. Amendment No 5 from Mr Gaston states:

"The regulations must provide for the issue of a certificate following a termination of pregnancy."

It is debatable as to whether there would be a choice, so voting in favour of that amendment is a particular risk.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I take that point from the Member, but just because the regulations "must" provide for that does not mean that you must impose a certificate or any action on anyone. The applicant should have the choice, on request, of whether they want one or not. I get where the Member's concerns are coming from. I do not think that it would limit secondary legislation and the regulations; it would add to and enforce rather than limit or take away from the regulations. You could argue that we are doing the same in our amendment No 3.

I will now speak on amendment No 3. We recognised what the Department was saying about having the agility to charge a fee if it needed to in the future. We accepted that. We do not want to see a fee. We hope that there will never be a fee for any aspect of it, but we understand that the Department should have that flexibility. I go back to the point that I made earlier: this is the only place where baby loss certificates will be in legislation, not just in policy. You have to afford the Department agility around fee structures if it thinks that fees might be required in the future. At least the Department would then have the flexibility to add to that.

The point remains that it would still have to come to the Assembly to be passed. It would be in the Assembly's gift whether or not to agree to the fee structure. I suspect that, because it is a draft affirmative procedure, we would be able to amend the fee structure or even take fees out completely. Amendment No 3 adds flexibility. It adds compromise to the positions of Eóin Tennyson and the Minister. We hope that that amendment will be supported by the Minister and the Department. If the Minister makes it known that that is his intention, it is debatable whether we will move amendment No 3. We will wait for the Minister's comments.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue after the question for urgent oral answer, when the next Member to be called will be Brian Kingston.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 12.59 pm.

On resuming —

Oral Answers to Questions — Finance

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Questions 7 and 13 have been withdrawn.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

1. Mrs Guy asked the Minister of Finance for an update on any engagement that he has had with the UK Treasury ahead of the Chancellor’s Budget on 26 November 2025. (AQO 2625/22-27)

Danny Baker (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

4. Mr Baker asked the Minister of Finance for an update on his engagement with Treasury ahead of the autumn Budget 2025. (AQO 2628/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I intend to answer questions 1 and 4 together.

I have urged the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to use the autumn Budget as an opportunity to further support workers and families, particularly on childcare. Economic growth and improved public services cannot be achieved without meaningful investment and support for working families. Affordable childcare is essential to improving labour market participation and to driving economic growth. I have therefore urged the Treasury to consider enhancements to the tax-free childcare scheme. I have also asked that the autumn Budget can be used to reverse the two-child benefit cap, recognising the hardship that it places on families.

I have made it clear to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that further austerity measures must not be taken that place an unfair burden on people, businesses or public services. The significant reduction in the resource Budget for local growth funding will severely impact on the community and voluntary sector's ability to deliver vital services, particularly for those furthest away from the labour market. The Assembly also sent a clear and united message that we stand with the community and voluntary sector and that there must be an urgent change to that approach. I have pressed the Chief Secretary to work with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to consider the funding profile of the new local growth fund. I have also reiterated my calls for a reduction in VAT to ensure that our hospitality sector can compete on a level playing field in the all-island economy.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

The Minister is well aware of the funding challenges facing our justice system. In particular, the PSNI data breach was clearly unforeseen, unavoidable and unaffordable. What representations has he made to the Treasury to make that funding available?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

As early as August of this year, I wrote to the Treasury on behalf of the Executive requesting access to the reserve fund for the PSNI data breach. Since then, there has been ongoing engagement with the Treasury on the issue, including between the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and me and at official level. It is regrettable that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury declined the Executive's request for access to the reserve fund for costs associated with the PSNI data breach. I and the Executive will continue to make the case to the Treasury. I also note the comments from others on the matter, which are welcome in supporting our approach to the Treasury.

Danny Baker (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Minister, you touched on this already, but will you give a wee bit more detail on what support you asked for in respect of working families?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

It is important that the Budget is used as an opportunity to support working families. I pressed that point both at the Financial Interministerial Standing Committee (FISC), which comprises the Ministers from the devolved institutions, and at the meeting with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury in mid-October. I followed that up in writing to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I specifically called for the support for childcare to be increased from 20% to 30% and for the £2,000 annual cap per child to be reviewed. I also asked the Treasury to ensure that, if further austerity measures are to be introduced, they do not target working families and businesses. It is important that we support workers' families and businesses through this time, and the Treasury has an ideal opportunity, in the upcoming Budget, to do so.

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

Minister, I recently wrote to you about something that you have often talked to me about, which is the Opposition's alternative plans. I asked you whether you would officially support costing our alternative Budget and other plans, as happened with the Opposition south of the border. I have not had a response yet. Will you support that measure to open up the books and cost Opposition policies?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I have asked my officials to engage with our counterparts in Dublin to see exactly what process is in place for supporting Opposition parties there and to see whether we can replicate those measures here. I note that, in Scotland and Wales, such measures have not been introduced. The Member will also be aware that the SDLP receives, I think, approximately £7,000 more per Member to carry out its function as the Opposition. We want to ensure that we do not duplicate finances that the SDLP already receives.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Minister, you might be aware that Chartered Accountants Ireland recently relaunched its campaign for the lowering of corporation tax in Northern Ireland. Have your discussions with the Treasury included the rate of corporation tax?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The matter has not been discussed during my tenure. There are well set criteria for the devolution of corporation tax here. Given that the costs to the Executive associated with devolving corporation tax are estimated to be between £300 million and £400 million, I do not think that the Executive or public services can afford that at this time. I have, however, tabled an Executive paper on the fiscal framework. We want a full examination of tax-varying powers and of what should be devolved to the Executive in the time ahead, following on from the Fiscal Commission's report. Any discussions about corporation tax need to be included in those discussions.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Minister, you will be aware that, this morning, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made an unprecedented speech, basically signalling that she will put up taxes and that she will prioritise health and other areas of public service. Bearing in mind that, if that goes through, additional consequentials are likely to come our way, will the Minister commit to ring-fence those moneys for Health to pay for health workers in particular?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for his question. I listened carefully to the Chancellor's address this morning. Very broad hints were dropped that taxes would be increased. The question that has not been answered thus far is this: on whom will that tax burden fall? It is important that that tax burden falls on those with the broadest shoulders and that any money raised from those taxes is invested in front-line public services. The Member will be aware that it will be for the Executive to decide how to allocate any Barnett consequentials that we receive as a result of that. Recently, we made commitments to allocate significant funding to Health, Education and Justice. Commitments have already been made by the Executive, but, if the Chancellor is to raise taxes, let us ensure that they are fair and progressive and that the money goes to front-line services.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

2. Mr Irwin asked the Minister of Finance to outline the next steps regarding the Civil Service vacating Marlborough House. (AQO 2626/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

In line with my Department's estate strategy, we are progressing with plans to divest ourselves of Marlborough House in Craigavon and move forward with replacement accommodation in the area. That will deliver savings at a time of budgetary pressures while providing an efficient, modern working environment for Civil Service staff. Marlborough House is the worst-performing site in the Civil Service estate with regard to energy efficiency and is significantly under-occupied. A business case has been approved for replacement accommodation for Civil Service staff, with the preferred option being High Street Mall in Portadown. That is progressing, with the accommodation expected to be ready in 2026. Notice to all occupants has been issued of the Department's plans and to vacate the building at the end of their occupational agreements this financial year. Non-Civil Service bodies located in Marlborough House are progressing with their own plans for their future accommodation.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his response. Does he agree that the historical environment division's recent grade B1 listing decision will make it more difficult to repurpose that building or dispose of it on the open market?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

There will be different views and opinions on such matters. It is unfortunate that we have reached this position. My Department made its case to the historical environment division of the Department for Communities. The decision has now been made. I am aware that there is interest in the building from at least one public-sector organisation. It is assessing the building to see whether it can be incorporated in its plans for future development. I hope that that moves forward at pace and that the building does not lie vacant and become a blight on an area of Craigavon that has seen significant investment in recent years and is thriving both commercially and residentially. I want to ensure that the building becomes usable again, but it will have do so through a sector other than the Civil Service.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

As a constituency colleague, I share the Minister's concern about the B1 listing. Did the Minister make representations to his colleague the Minister for Communities on the listing? Has there been any reappraisal of the Department's plans for the site following the listing?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I am not sure whether I raised that directly with the Minister for Communities in writing — I will clarify that for the Member — but representations were certainly made at official level at my request, because it caused concern. Interest has been shown in the site, which could be of huge benefit to the entire area by continuing the progress that we have seen in central Craigavon over many years. I will clarify that point and respond directly to the Member on it, but representations were made through officials at my request.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

As you touched on, it is good that there is an indication that somebody is interested in the building, but, if that sale does not go ahead, do you foresee difficulties with its sale because of the listing?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The listing will present challenges to future potential buyers and occupants of the property. It was simply impossible for us to bring together a business case that would allow us to invest in that building the money that is required to bring it up to modern heat efficiency standards etc. Others have a different vision for the use of the building, and I hope that their business case stacks up and that progress is ahead. There will be different views inside and outside the Chamber about some of those matters, but I know that the listing has caused challenges, shall we say, in ensuring that the building is put to future use.

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

Minister, over the past 50 years, thousands of people have worked behind Marlborough House's uniquely honeycombed facade. Those of us who worked there have varying degrees of affinity with the big brute. There are 14 Civil Service properties worth £30 million that are lying completely empty and unused. Now that Marlborough House has been listed, will that number become 15?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I thought for a second that the Member was calling me a big brute.

[Laughter.]

He may do at times. As I said, the listing of the building does not assist us in moving forward, but a public-sector body is interested in it. The Member will be aware that we have an estate strategy on the disposal of public buildings. We have been successful with the disposal of a number of buildings, and we will continue to put buildings on the market as they become vacant. The market will respond in due course with what it is prepared to pay for those etc, but we have an estate strategy and a plan. I am content with how things are moving forward.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

3. Miss Dolan asked the Minister of Finance for an update on his engagement with the British Government on the local growth fund. (AQO 2627/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

As the House will be aware from the recent motion on the matter, I have been engaging with Ministers in the NIO, Treasury and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on it since my appointment as Finance Minister. That engagement has intensified as the continued Whitehall delay has increased the urgency of the situation. Last month, I met Hilary Benn and reiterated the urgency of the issue and stressed the need for resource — not capital — funding to tackle economic inactivity, which is a key barrier to economic growth. I also highlighted the risks, particularly to the community and voluntary sector, of further delay. I attended a trilateral meeting with the Secretary of State, Hilary Benn, and Steve Reed, Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government, on 22 October. We have agreed to an intensive period of trilateral working at official level to urgently develop a way forward.

I have also repeatedly raised those issues with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, most recently in person at a meeting on 17 October. I followed that up in writing on 23 October, calling on him to provide flexibility on the capital/resource split through the budgetary process. I emphasised the negative impact that the proposal for capital-heavy funding would have here. It is unacceptable that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government left it so late to commence that joint working, but I remain ready to work with anyone at any time to progress the matter. The stakes are too high to do anything else.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Minister, thank you for your work on the matter. I know how committed you are to ensuring that we get some follow-up money after the loss of EU funding. What engagement have you had with the community and voluntary sector about the fund?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I have had several meetings with the community and voluntary sector on that. The first meeting was with the Chief Officers Third Sector (CO3) group on 17 September, at which I provided an update to 41 representatives of the sector and listened to many of their concerns. I have kept the sector regularly updated. I met it again on 1 October under the auspices of NICVA and wrote to it again on 3 October. I have directed my officials to do the same and to collaborate with the sector through their intensive engagement with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the NIO over the next number of weeks.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

5. Mr Butler asked the Minister of Finance, in relation to the recently launched 2026-27 Northern Ireland Civil Service student placement scheme, to outline the steps he will take to ensure that students with a disability have equitable opportunity to be successful. (AQO 2629/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The Civil Service is an equal opportunities employer committed to building a diverse and inclusive Civil Service that reflects the society that it serves. The student placement competition has been advertised widely via a range of channels and welcomes applications from disabled students. The Civil Service engages directly with the placement teams in local universities to promote the opportunities. Information on the NI Union of Supported Employment is included in the candidate information booklet. The Civil Service will discuss putting reasonable adjustments in place for disabled applicants at any stage of the selection process.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for his answer. The Minister will already know that the disabled community is under-represented across probably all employment levels. Does the Minister agree that the Civil Service should lead the way and move beyond reasonable adjustments and set significant ambitions to see some of the most underutilised, most professional people in our communities — those with disabilities — in paid employment?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I take on board the Member's comments and the direction of travel that he is coming from or wishes to see. I want to continue to see the Civil Service as an inclusive employer. That means that all of those under-represented sections of our society have to be reached out to, and we need to look at the ways of making sure that we are not presenting barriers to their entering the service. We also have to be conscious of other employment and equality legislation, but I assure the Member that the team behind this are committed to ensuring that the Civil Service is inclusive. If there are lessons to be learnt, I am more than happy to learn, and I am sure that the team working behind this are too.

Cara Hunter (Social Democratic and Labour Party, East Londonderry)

On the topic of widening criteria, we have heard that there are some challenges with students in further education applying for a student placement. Are you aware of that, and can you tell us more?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I am not aware of it. If the Member has any more details on it, please correspond with me on it. As I said, it has to be inclusive, and all further education colleges have to be included in it. If the Member has information in that regard, she should please forward it to me.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

6. Ms Forsythe asked the Minister of Finance for an update on progress under the social value strategy 2025-2027. (AQO 2630/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I am proud that my Department is the first Executive Department to publish a social value strategy, which was developed in partnership with key stakeholders in the business and voluntary, community and social enterprise sectors. While the strategy was a commitment in the revised procurement policy note, 'Social Value in Procurement', it goes beyond procurement and sets out the social value goals and ambitions, focusing on the Department's key responsibility as owner of the Civil Service office estate and policy lead for finances, procurement and human resources. Demonstrating my commitment to raising the profile of social value in my Department, I have appointed a social value champion who will monitor and report on the Department's progress. Good progress has been made on the strategy, with 11 targets already met. A progress report with further details on what has been achieved in the six months will be published on the Department of Finance website in the coming weeks.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I thank the Minister for his answer. I look forward to seeing the progress report. In the meantime, is he able to detail whether there has been an increase in engagement and trading with small and medium-sized enterprises? It was a key target coming through on that to reach out to the smaller businesses in Northern Ireland, which are such a key player.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Yes is the answer. If there are areas in which we can seek improvement, let us look at those to see how we can improve. Given the proportion and importance of the small and medium-sized enterprise sector to our economy, it is only right and proper that my Department and, indeed, others engage in relation to social value and many other aspects of doing business. In my opinion, yes is the answer, but, if there are other areas where we need to learn, I am happy to do so.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Minister, in your first answer, you mentioned the social value champion. Can you give us an idea of who that is and what exactly their role is?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I have appointed the Construction and Procurement Delivery (CPD) deputy secretary to the social value champion role. Her role is to monitor the progress of the social value strategy and identify areas for improvement. I intend to publish a progress report shortly, as I said in my original answer. As the first Department to develop and publish a strategy, we recognise that we are leading the way. Therefore, feedback from all sectors is particularly welcome to help inform future strategies.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

8. Mr Gaston asked the Minister of Finance to outline the number of staff from his Department and its arm's-length bodies who work in County Hall, Ballymena. (AQO 2632/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

There are no staff in my Department or its arm's-length bodies (ALBs) working in County Hall, Ballymena. As of 30 June 2025, 254 staff are based in County Hall, Ballymena from the following public bodies: Department for Infrastructure, 67; Department of Health, 149; Department for Communities, 34; Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, four.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his response in outlining the numbers not only of his own staff but the numbers of staff from other Departments at County Hall.

Minister, the grounds of County Hall have not been maintained and have become neglected over recent years and months. Can you set out today when the Department will start to carry out routine maintenance at County Hall again to ensure that it becomes a nice, welcoming environment, not the eyesore that it has been allowed to turn into?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

My Department, like all Departments, continues to face significant challenges, which, unfortunately, has impacted on the services that we can provide, including the routine maintenance of public grounds. My Department's construction and procurement delivery team has prioritised essential building maintenance services to ensure the health and safety of the working office environment for staff and visitors to our buildings. My Department's estate management unit is in regular contact with the premises team to ensure that any statutory and priority health and safety issues are identified and dealt with promptly.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

9. Mr McAleer asked the Minister of Finance to outline the steps that his Department is taking to reduce bureaucracy and costs in terms of procurement for grant recipients, particularly those in the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector. (AQO 2633/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Following the introduction of the Procurement Act in February 2025, my Department carried out a review of existing procurement policy and guidance to ensure that the flexibilities in the new legal framework can be maximised. The revised guidance, known as the "'Dear Accounting Officer' letter 05/22 (Grant or Procurement)", was approved for publication by the Executive on 16 October 2025. As a result, we have updated the guidance to reduce red tape and make procurement easier for grant recipients, especially those in the voluntary, community and social enterprise sector. Grant recipients will now no longer need to follow the same procedures as government Departments and arm's-length bodies. That change recognises that most local businesses have fewer than 50 employees and is aimed at making it easier for them to deliver grant-funded projects for communities. As a result, the new guidance will help to reduce bureaucracy, support faster delivery and lower costs for funders and recipients.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his response. Can public bodies, such as the Education Authority, benefit from changes made in the Procurement Act 2023 and procurement guidance?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Yes, they can. I continue to hear stories of difficulties that schools and other bodies have in procurement exercises. I am of the view — evidence backs this up from the changes that we have made in the past year through the Procurement Act and supported by the Executive — that significant changes have been made. Increasing the threshold for public tendering from £30,000 to £50,000 last year allows schools to make local spending decisions and to contract with local suppliers for lower-value contracts. Given the financial constraints facing us, it is important that we continue to reduce unnecessary bureaucracy, which wastes time and money. I have encouraged, do encourage and will continue to encourage all Ministers, their Departments and their arm's-length bodies to take advantage of the changes to procurement legislation, guidance and policy to ensure that we achieve best value for money.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

10. Mr Frew asked the Minister of Finance to outline any further measures that his Department is taking to recover the £145·4 million in unpaid rates as of 31 August 2025. (AQO 2634/22-27)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Last year saw Land and Property Services (LPS) collect a record £1·63 billion in rates. As I outlined to the House on 21 October during the debate, my Department remains committed to the collection of unpaid rates. Already this year, the amount owing from previous years has reduced by 20%, and, as legal action for non-payment increases in the coming months, that will continue to drive the amount owed down further. There are two categories when it comes to rates debt: those who cannot pay and those who will not pay. We have to pursue rigorously those who refuse to pay, and we have to support and work with those who cannot pay in order to find a way for them to do so.

It might be helpful if I provided more detail on the £145 million that is outstanding. Some £59 million has already been subject to legal recovery action, which enables further legal action to be taken where rates remain unpaid; and £12·8 million is being repaid through active payment plans or agreements with Land and Property Services. The remaining £73·5 million is under review for further legal action. It is important that Members understand that, within that amount, there are cases that are not suitable for legal action, including those in which there has been a bereavement, an appeal or where the ratepayer is in receipt of benefits.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for that comprehensive answer. How does the shortfall in rates collection impact on the overall Budget, the Departments that enjoy the Budget and the way in which councils get their budgets?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

It does not impact on front-line delivery until a decision is made to write off an amount of debt. Such a decision is made over a period of years. It will not impact on them then. Departments spend on the amount of money that, we predict, will come in from the rates; that is how the planning is done. In year, there is no impact, but, when we reach the stage at which we have a number of years of debt that we need to write off, there will be an impact on further years' spending. It does have an impact, hence the reason for Land and Property Services and me putting a greater emphasis on ensuring that we go through the process of retrieving all moneys that can be retrieved. As I have said to Members, we have to be measured on this. For example, bringing a small business to court can mean the end of that business and the loss of its jobs etc, but, one way or the other, everybody has to pay their rates. That is the strategy to which my Department works.