Northern Ireland Assembly, 18 November 2025

431 contributions from 62 members. The official report.

Members' Statements

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Last week's news that the price of school meals will increase is another blow for hard-working parents. The extra £10 a month per child will push many families further into food poverty. Let me be abundantly clear: hiking the price of school meals is a political choice to shift the Department's budgetary pressures on to the shoulders of ordinary, hard-working families. For years, Audit Office reports have highlighted inefficiencies and waste in the Education Authority (EA) and the Department of Education, yet no action has been taken. Ordinary families are now picking up the bill for years of poor financial management by successive DUP Ministers of Education.

As a teacher, I know that many hard-pressed families work hard to make ends meet. It is not a luxury to provide a hot dinner at lunchtime but a necessity. In addition, the Minister has rolled back on making school uniforms more affordable, is considering hiking the fees for music tuition in schools further and has failed to roll out an affordable childcare strategy in full. Is it any wonder that ordinary families are struggling? This is about cutting services for those families who can least afford them. The Minister can reverse the policies. He can show children and families that he is serious about creating an education system that provides equal opportunities and that allows children to flourish, regardless of their socio-economic background. The Minister needs to listen to parents. He needs to listen to parents in Derry, to parents in his constituency and to parents right across the North.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Like many in the Chamber, I was invited to the Men's Alliance NI domestic violence event that was held on Saturday in Writers' Square in Belfast. It is very disappointing that Members across the Chamber did not support that event. Many have much to say about domestic violence, but one could be forgiven for thinking that, because it was a men's event, they decided not to attend.

Thirty-five per cent of reported cases of domestic violence are suffered by men. That is a startling statistic. It is difficult for all those who suffer from domestic violence to come forward, but most Members would accept that it is more so for men because of pride.

When I attended the event, I was surprised, because it was led by women. There is nothing more powerful than women walking down the street in Belfast with a loud message about domestic violence. To be fair to them, they are against domestic violence against all. I met two young girls who lost their father through domestic violence. They spoke of an incident in which he had been publicly attacked by his ex-partner on a bus service in Belfast. He was too shy to come forward or make a complaint. Unfortunately, that man paid with his life: he was stabbed to death in his bed. In that case, thankfully, someone was brought to justice and will serve 14 years in prison. I am sure that, if that man is looking down on his daughters, he is proud of them for leading the Men's Alliance event in Belfast on Saturday. They carried that banner not only in memory of their father but for all the other men and others who suffer from domestic violence.

I spoke to others at the event who described themselves as feminists but put the issue of domestic violence at the forefront. One of their banners stated:

"We recognise all victims of domestic violence".

Another banner called for more support services for men, and I agree with that. We have not got the services that we really need in Northern Ireland, and it is only through the efforts of the Men's Alliance in raising awareness that we know that. We need more support services for men, and we need shelters for men as much as we need them for women.

It would be great if, some day, we could talk in the Chamber about there being no domestic violence because we had got rid of it. Unfortunately, that is not the case: it is here, and it looks as though it is here to stay. We have to do more for all victims: be they men or women, we need to do more.

Danny Donnelly (Alliance, East Antrim)

I recognise the success of Antrim Coast Dance Academy in Larne at the recent World Irish Dance Championships in Salthill, Galway. The academy brought 27 dancers to the event, and every one of them placed in the top 10 in their category. That alone says a lot about the hard work and commitment of those young people and the support that they receive from their families and teachers.

Seven dancers from the academy came home as world title winners. Eva Quinlan became the under-9s intermediate world champion. Bailey Smith won the under-11s primary world title. Lacey Mitchell took the under-11s intermediate title after only one year of dancing, which is an incredible achievement for anyone who is starting out. Grace McKeown became the under-14s intermediate world champion. Grace lives with mild learning disabilities and had struggled to find her place until she discovered dance, which makes her success all the more meaningful. Erin Millar won the under-14s open world title. Melissa Galway became the under-16s open champion, winning her second world title. She also achieved nine GCSE A* grades at St Killian's College, Carnlough, this year. Jodi McCourt won the under-21 ladies' open title and has not been beaten in any competition in the past three years.

The academy has been running for 10 years and is led by two dedicated teachers. It has about 30 dancers aged between three and 21. What they have built gives children and young people the space to grow in confidence and talent, and their results in Galway show how far that has taken them. I offer my warmest congratulations to every dancer who was involved and to the teachers and parents who give so much time and care to help them thrive.

Maolíosa McHugh (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Tá na dálaí tiomána ag gabháil in olcas de réir mar atáimid ag druidim le tréimhse na Nollag: tá an lá ag cailleadh, bíonn na bealaí fliuch, bíonn sioc agus oighear orthu agus bíonn níos mó tráchta ar na bealaí mar gheall ar dhaoine ag déanamh shiopadóireacht na Nollag nó ag gabháil ag amharc ar a ndaoine muinteartha. Ba mhaith liom aird a tharraignt ar an tsábháilteacht ar bhóithre inniu i gcomhar le Lá Domhanda i gCuimhne ar Dhaoine a d’Fhulaing de dheasca Timpistí ar Bhóithre. Ardaím an t-ábhar sin, ní hé amháin le cuimhneamh ar dhaoine a d’fhulaing de dheasca timpistí ar bhóithre ach le húsáideoirí bóithre a spreagadh le bheith ar a seacht n-airdeall thar thréimhse na Nollag.

Fuair muid scéala uafásach, ag deireadh na seachtaine, go bhfuair cúigear daoine faoi 25 bliana d’aois bás i dtimpiste i gcontae Lú. Gabhaim mo chomhbhrón lena muintir agus guím ar son na ndaoine a tugadh chuig an ospidéal i ndiaidh an teagmhais. Go ndéana Dia trócaire ar a n-anam.

An té atá ag gabháil an bóthar, ba chóir dó ceann cúrsa a bhaint amach, pé acu coisí, rothaí, tiománaí nó paisinéir é. Cé go spreagaimid úsáideoirí bóithre le céimeanna riachtanacha a ghlacadh, ní mór dúinn, sa Teach seo, céimeanna riachtanacha a ghlacadh fosta lenár n-úsáideoirí bóithre a chosaint, go háirithe i gcás Bhóthar A5. De réir an fheachtais Is Leor Sin, fuair 57 nduine bás ó cuireadh tús ar fheachtas Bhóthar A5. Sin 57 nduine nár bhain ceann cúrsa amach. Is minic agus is rómhinic a tharla tubaiste agus crá croí ar Bhóthar A5, rud a d’fhág teaghlaigh ar fud an oileáin faoi choscairt. Caithfidh gach duine againn bheith ag tacú leis an phobal agus leis na daoine sin a chaill daoine muinteartha agus bheith ag obair le chéile lena chinntiú go ndéanfar an bóthar sin. Sábhálfaidh an feachtas sin beatha daoine. Leanfaidh Sinn Féin de bheith ag obair le feachtasóirí, le páirtithe eile agus leis an Aire Bonneagair lena chinntiú go gcuirfear an tionscadal ríthábhachtach sin i gcrích. Abraimis ar lá seo an chuimhneacháin go ndéanfaimid ár seacht ndícheall leis an fheachtas sin a chur i gcrích.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

On 16 October, when the Minister for the Economy issued her politically charged ministerial statement attacking the state of Israel and undermining the aerospace, defence and space sector in Northern Ireland, this party made it clear that we would challenge that decision at every possible turn. That is why, jointly with the Ulster Unionist Party and Traditional Unionist Voice, this party tabled a call-in petition to the Business Office in relation to that decision. We warmly welcome the fact that a ruling has been made that that decision must now come before the Executive. As we made clear at the time, the attempted decision by the Minister for the Economy was controversial and significant.

For the avoidance of doubt, Sinn Féin does not and will not ever set UK trade policy. That is a reserved matter for His Majesty's Government, and the DUP call-in justifies that decision. The value of the aerospace, defence and space sector in Northern Ireland is £2·2 billion a year, and it employs 10,000 people. The Minister for the Economy is entitled to her personal views on that industry, but she is not entitled to use her office to undermine those jobs and investments. In every corner of Northern Ireland, people from all backgrounds, traditions and none work in that sector. We will not allow their jobs to be put at risk by a Minister who fears more from attack from parties to my left than from delivering in her role as Minister for the Economy.

While others may talk Northern Ireland down, try to cost us jobs and not welcome investment, this party will proudly take every opportunity to speak up for the people of Northern Ireland and ensure that our economy continues to flourish.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

People come to us MLAs with a number of matters, including potholes in their street and issues with housing, health and education. It is a privilege to represent them, but, every so often, you get a case that really stays with you.

About 11 months ago, I met an extraordinary woman whose husband was tragically killed while cycling. When you speak to her, you can feel the grief and the love that she had for her husband, and the gap that he left in their family is much felt.

The trauma of his death, however, was compounded by the fact that the person who was driving and who killed him was not meant to be on the road. He had been told that he could not drive any more. It is clear that there is a gap in the system. In some cases, medical professionals will report drivers to the Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) if they suspect that that they will not give up their licence themselves. In most cases, however, it is left to the individual to contact the DVA. We know enough about human nature and how people behave to know that they will do the easiest thing. In this case, the man was told that he was not allowed to drive because of a medical condition, but he continued to drive. As a result, a family lost a cherished father, husband and friend.

About 11 months ago, I made a Member's statement in the House about this matter, about how there is a gap and how, by closing it, we can help to save lives. Since then, along with my constituent, we have made steady progress, having spoken to the Infrastructure Minister, who was deeply sympathetic and empathetic, as well as the BMA and the Courts and Tribunals Service. We have written to the Department of Health, and I understand that the Health and Infrastructure Ministers have discussed the matter. We need to keep it on the agenda, however, because the situation needs to stop. There must be other people in our society who have been affected in the same way, and I would love for them to reach out to me so that we can build more of a campaign around the issue.

There is no reason why medical professionals cannot report directly to the DVA because they already do it in some instances. Let us make it the rule instead of the exception. This woman, who is my constituent, is extraordinary and is so dedicated to changing the law so that no one else has to go through the pain that she did. I hope that as Members, we can work together to help save lives as a result.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Northern Ireland's fishing industry is standing on the edge of a cliff. Unless there is a swift and decisive intervention, we may soon witness the collapse of one of our oldest and proudest but most vulnerable industries. Last week, the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea issued its latest scientific advice. It proposes a staggering 70% reduction in the total allowable catch of mackerel in the north-east Atlantic in 2026. At the same time, when it comes to nephrops in the Irish Sea's functional unit 15, which are the lifeblood of our small and medium-sized vessels, the advice is for a 35% cut from just over 10,000 tonnes to 6,493 tonnes.

Those are not minor adjustments, but seismic shocks that hit two species on which Northern Ireland's fleet most depends. Those cuts mean something very simple for crews in Kilkeel, Ardglass and Portavogie. They mean that boats are tied up, income is slashed and processors are running idle. Once a vessel is sold off, a processor closes its doors or a skilled team is broken up, the industry cannot simply be switched back on again when the science changes. The capacity is gone, the skills are gone and the supply chain is gone, and the fishing community is left hollowed out.

This crisis has been compounded by a legacy of disadvantage. Vessels cannot simply stream to alternative grounds. Fuel costs, long transits, crewing pressures and the realities of the Irish Sea make that impossible. Add to that the continued regulatory constraints of the protocol and the Windsor framework and you have a fleet that is exposed on every side, scientifically, economically and politically.

We need to know what assessment Mr Muir has made of the combined impact of those cuts. What defence of Northern Ireland's share has been mounted? Let us be clear, Mr Muir: if those proposals proceed unchallenged, and if your Department fails to act, the devastation for the fishing industry will be real and unrepairable.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

It has been well documented how important speech and language assistance and support can be for children and young people who have additional communication needs. There is no doubt that investment in speech and language provision through well-paid staff and appropriate support can and does have transformative and life-changing impacts for those young people. We often hear in this Building about the need for early intervention and preventative work to take place. Sometimes it does happen, but quite often it does not. Parents and carers often face barriers to securing the appropriate setting and support, including community support, for their children with additional communication needs. I do not think that it has to be like that.

Today, I pay tribute to all the people working and delivering speech and language units and supports in other settings and to all the young people who avail themselves of those very important services. Disgracefully, only four speech and language-specific units exist across Belfast, and, today, I speak to the issue of pupils in St Teresa's Primary School. I know that the parents and carers are watching this morning. St Teresa's is an excellent mainstream school in west Belfast that provides a speech and language unit to children who need that support and assistance. Shockingly, the support and service stop when the children and young people finish primary 4. There has been no explanation or rationale for why that important and crucial service stops at some arbitrary, plucked-out-of-the-sky date. As things stand, come June next year, 12 pupils will have no idea of where they will go. They will have to leave St Teresa's Primary School with no idea of what support will be in place. For some, that will be their third school in four years, which is totally unacceptable.

St Teresa's Primary School supports the call for speech and language provision to remain on site for young people up until primary 7. Nobody, especially children with additional communication needs, deserves to be uprooted and removed from an educational setting just to save pennies and pounds. A small investment in staff at the school for services to be extended for another three years would be absolutely transformative for the pupils, their families and, obviously, the wider community. This morning, I call on the Department of Education, the Education Authority and the Belfast Health and Social Care Trust to urgently intervene and work together to provide some clarity and assurances for those families and the wider community to make sure that those services exist for another three years up until primary 7. They say, if it is not broke, do not try to fix it. This service certainly is not broken. It is working and it needs to be extended, and clarity and security needs to be provided. If Departments do not respond, we are getting ready —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

— to march, to fight and to kick up a fuss about this.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Last week, I visited the West Bank as part of an international delegation to discuss what is happening in Palestine. The West Bank is often referred to as the "normal" part of Palestine. Of course, there is nothing normal about a place where the Israeli settlers grade people as if they were meat. There is nothing normal about a system that determines your value on your identity. Even before we got there, in Jordan, I met Palestinians who had never been in their own country because they are not allowed. From my experience of the Jordanian border crossing, unpleasant as that was, it is not the hostility of the Israeli officials that I will remember, and not the dry heat, but the warmth and kindness and spirit of young Palestinians who went out of their way to make our experience easier, lifting our suitcases, pointing us in the right direction and trying to ease my obvious apprehension at being faced with a border crossing that I had no knowledge of prior to going through it. We then got into Ramallah and were told, "It's not that bad here". How twisted a world we live in when the barometer for suffering is babies starving to death in a place where the water is turned on once a week, where you can only go to work through border checkpoints and where you cannot leave the country. I met families who have never left the country because they are not allowed to. We then got to the university where we were having our congress, and I heard from students who had already been arrested and detained without trial, because getting educated in the West Bank is an act of resistance. I heard that they had buried five students from their one university in the past four years. Again, they said, "It is not that bad here". In Gaza, they knocked all their schools and universities to the ground, and yet such was the determination of those people that they walked for miles, set up school camps and educated their young people in the face of a genocide. We spoke to young people who told us how planting crops, as the Israelis steal the land from under them, is an act of resistance. I will carry those stories with me and continue to be a voice for the Palestinian people who seemingly cannot be heard by the rest of the Western world.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

This week is Road Safety Week, which is held annually across the United Kingdom on the third week of November. The annual campaign, organised by the road safety charity Brake, focuses on raising awareness and promoting life-saving messages to reduce casualties on our roads.

Our thoughts and prayers remain very much with all those affected by the shocking tragedy that occurred on Saturday, when five young adults, aged between 21 and 23, lost their lives in a road traffic accident near Dundalk. On behalf of the Democratic Unionist Party, I express our deepest sympathies and condolences to their families and friends. The scale of that tragedy is chilling. We do not know the circumstances, which are under investigation, but the devastating outcome is a reminder to us all of the dangers, particularly when travelling at speed, and the need for concentration and caution when driving, because lives can be suddenly and utterly changed or ended.

The theme of Road Safety Week changes each year, but it often focuses on critical areas, such as the devastating consequences of speeding; vehicle safety and checking that vehicles are roadworthy; using modern safety technology; and the personal responsibility of every road user when it comes to their safety and that of others with whom they share the road. We are told that 1,671 people died on UK roads last year, which is between four and five people every day. Nearly 29,000 people suffered serious life-changing injuries last year, which is almost 80 people every day. The theme for 2025 is "Safe vehicles save lives". It highlights the importance of maintaining vehicles to ensure that they are roadworthy and utilising modern technology, such as automated driver assistance systems, to prevent collisions.

I expect that all drivers have had the experience of someone driving behind them, particularly on country roads, and causing them to feel under pressure to drive that bit faster. This week is a reminder to us all never to be pressured into driving at a higher speed that would cause us to feel not in control or unsafe and never to be the one who pressures another driver for the sake of arriving a few seconds or minutes earlier. It is better to arrive a bit later but to do so safely.

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

I will speak about a deeply troubling story that appears today on the front page of 'The Irish News' and that strikes at the heart of what our health service is supposed to represent: dignity, care and compassion. According to the report, a man who was gravely ill with cancer and connected to an IV drip was forced to lie on the floor at Altnagelvin Area Hospital for over 50 hours simply because there were no available beds. That is not a statistic; it is a vulnerable, frightened human being who was without even the most basic comfort of a bed. He was given a blanket and a pillow, but that does not erase the indignity of being made to wait on the floor in a hospital, a place where we entrust our life to others and expect to be treated with care. The Western Health and Social Care Trust acknowledged that its hospitals are under extreme pressure and operating far beyond their funded capacity. However, it is not just an operational issue; it is a profound moral failing.

Reports from oversight bodies warn of systemic problems: patients forced to wait in corridors or in chairs for days; insufficient beds; and a lack of basic dignity. When a health system allows someone in their darkest hour to lie on a hospital floor, we must ask this: have we lost sight of what care truly means? We cannot let that become a new normal. Hospital care in corridors has become too commonplace in Daisy Hill, Craigavon and hospitals across the North. We must demand urgent concrete action, more capacity, better funding, improved infrastructure and, most important, respect for the dignity of every patient.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

The Northern Ireland Assembly passed the Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Act in 2022. It was a private Member's Bill, but it was fully supported by the Minister for the Economy and the Economy Department, yet we still do not have it enacted. Why is the Minister for the Economy dragging her heels on that important issue?

The Domestic Abuse (Safe Leave) Act creates a right of 10 days' paid leave for all victims of domestic and sexual violence. It was good enough to be voted for and passed in the House, yet the Department for the Economy drags its heels. It was the first legislation of its kind to be passed in the British Isles, yet the Department for the Economy is now failing victims of domestic and sexual violence. Why is that? Regulations should be made immediately to protect victims and survivors of domestic violence, to keep them in work and ensure that their workplace is a safe place for them. That is a noble cause, and I will continue to press the Department for the Economy on it.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Thank you. That brings to a conclusion Members' statements.

Assembly Business

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Further to your ruling yesterday that the Economy Minister's decision was significant and controversial, I wish to draw to the Assembly's attention an important clarification letter. Jim Allister MP has received a letter from the Secretary of State in which Mr Benn makes it explicitly clear that international relations are a reserved matter and that negotiations on trade with Israel are conducted by the UK Government on behalf of all parts of the UK. The subject on which the Minister purported to act therefore lies outside her legal competence. In light of that clarification, will you consider the procedural implications for ministerial authority and whether the Assembly was misled as to the scope of devolved powers in that area? Will you also outline what safeguards exist to prevent ministerial overreach when issuing directions to bodies such as Invest NI?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

In the first instance, I am not sure that that is a point of order. Secondly, I need to clarify that I did not make a ruling that the decision was significant or controversial, because I was not asked to make that ruling. I was asked to make a ruling on whether it was an issue of public importance, and I outlined the reasons why we arrived at that conclusion. It is now a matter for the Northern Ireland Executive, and it will be left with them to make a decision on how to take it forward after the decision that was made yesterday.

Ministerial Statements

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I have received notice from the Minister of Finance that he wishes to make a statement.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I wish to provide Members with an update on the progress made on the review of the rating system and my intended steps over the coming weeks.

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

Less than a year ago, it was announced that my Department would undertake a systematic review of all rates supports. Substantial progress has been made to date, with four policy reviews completed. I am accelerating the review process and can confirm today that every rate support will have been reviewed by the end of the 2027-28 rating year. The remaining policy areas will be front-loaded in order of strategic importance within the remaining time frame.

The aim of the process has been and remains to secure positive and progressive changes to the rating system. That need has been echoed strongly by interested parties through the course of significant engagement with my officials. Today, I will outline how I intend to bring about change that will see enhanced support for small businesses, which are the backbone of our local economy; change that tackles the high level of vacancies in our town and city centres; change that supports businesses that are starting out; and change that helps accelerate business growth. I cannot do that in isolation, and I have spoken many times in the House and around the Executive table of the constrained financial environment within which we operate. In terms of how we deliver rating change in such a context, the interlinked nature of rating policy, both domestic and non-domestic, is critical. That is particularly the case as we aim to improve the system with limited resources. Where changes to make the system more progressive can act to deliver change in one area, those savings can then allow us to ease the tax burden on others.

Following the public consultation on increasing the maximum capital value and reducing the early payment discount, which concluded in April, responses were assessed and proposals put forward to the Executive in June for a decision. Those proposals have the potential to unlock £9 million of government spending power. To illustrate the significance of that in rating terms, that £9 million being diverted to the small business rate scheme enhances an existing scheme that costs £22 million and already supports 30,000 ratepayers.

Many in the Chamber have called for additional support for small businesses since the Executive returned last year. The proposals that I am bringing forward pave the way for that while recognising the financial realities within which we are operating. It would be easy for me to set out my policy aims and seek additional funding to support them: that is not what I am doing. Operating a responsive and progressive rating system cannot mean layering additional supports at the cost of other Executive priorities. Instead, we must carefully consider how best the limited support levers available can be applied in the current operating context to best effect. I am not seeking additional funding to enhance support for businesses; instead, I am asking for support to deliver changes in one part of the rating system that allow additional support in another, with the two adjustments operating on a cost-neutral basis. I want to see extra help going to small business properties that provide vital employment and support workers, families and communities. Today's proposals, which stem from the discussions with businesses, align with my desire to deliver positive change for businesses and boost economic growth.

First, I will talk about the small business rate relief scheme. It was clear from the strategic review of that area that there was an appetite among representative bodies, industry and local government for enhanced support to be delivered to small businesses. Our local economy is overwhelmingly made up of SME businesses, and around 90% of them are classified as microbusinesses with fewer than 10 employees. I fully endorse such an approach. A sustainable small business sector is at the heart of a thriving economy. It comes as no surprise that other jurisdictions are also supporting that ambition through their own policy proposals.

The analysis from my Department concurred that there was a need to enhance support aimed at bolstering businesses in smaller properties. While the approach taken in other jurisdictions has been to cherry-pick specific sectors, that is often done on the basis of legacy support put in place during the pandemic. I have listened to the views provided and am instead in favour of taking a sector-neutral approach to any enhancement of small business rate support. I want to create an environment that brings businesses into town and city centres. However, I want that to be an environment that creates a level playing field for all types of businesses by enhancing support across business types. I see no hierarchy in need.

I want to encourage business start-ups of any type and to do what we can by lowering operating costs for businesses in that category. There are two methods by which I can deliver an enhancement to the current small business rate relief scheme. The first method is to increase the amount of reductions delivered under the scheme. The current reduction levels of 20%, 25% and 50% have remained static since the scheme was last reviewed in 2012. It is my preference to increase those reduction levels. The second method of enhancement is to increase the upper valuation threshold that applies in the scheme. Again, that upper valuation level has not been increased since 2012 and needs adjusted to modern rental values.

Given that Reval2026 will be the fourth revaluation process in 11 years, it is my preference to raise the rental value thresholds so that they are broadly in line with valuation list growth. I will consult in the next few weeks on both methods in order to continue to allow changes to be made for the next rating year. The scalability pertaining to both forms of enhancement is critical and forms a key part of the discussion. It is no secret that the Executive's finances are under significant pressure at present. I have brought forward proposals on two policy areas that would raise £9 million. Likewise, lowering operating costs through rate support will in itself have the potential to grow the tax base by bringing more businesses into the rating system and generating more revenue in overall terms. Those two factors, plus the fact that changes can be made alongside doing the revaluation exercise, give us an opportunity to make important changes while maintaining the overall level of rating revenue generated through the broader rating system.

I am also willing to consider all ideas on co-funding models from Departments and councils to enhance small business rate relief support. Supporting small businesses should be high on all our agendas, and working in partnership to optimise joint efforts is my preferred approach. My officials are working at pace to put out proposals for consultation between now and the new year in order to get the views of businesses before final proposals are submitted to Executive colleagues for decision.

The progress made on taking forward policy considerations on rate relief demonstrates my commitment to delivering positive change. To be clear, in order to translate policy into action, Members must understand that progressive rating does not mean considering policy proposals in isolation but as a whole.

On the second area for review, I have already stated in the Chamber and at the Finance Committee that I want to increase the level of liability for non-domestic vacant rating. Admittedly, the views on that policy varied in the review feedback. The case for increasing liability was clear-cut for commercially attractive areas and for areas where there is clear regeneration potential. Support for increasing liability was understandably weaker for less commercially viable areas, where owners can struggle to let properties, despite taking active steps to do so. On balance, however, I take the view that, in order to tackle the high prevalence of vacant units, I now need to move the non-domestic vacant rate from 50% to 75% and then to 100%. When fully implemented, it is estimated that the changes have the potential to unlock a further £20 million of revenue between central and local government.

Given the Executive's Programme for Government (PFG) commitments on housing and regeneration and the work being done on preventing dilapidation, there is a unique window of opportunity to maximise the impact of the changes through working actively across Departments. It is, however, a significant change, connecting so many strands of Executive policy, so Executive agreement will be required before the change can be implemented. I have instructed my officials to take forward the policy work that is required to secure Executive agreement. I also appreciate that, in order to respond to the concerns expressed during the review, there will need to be sufficient lead-in time for any change to allow owners to respond to that future shift in policy direction.

As I have stated, engagement with stakeholders over the summer was extensive. One of the discussion points was this: what can be done through the rating system to encourage business expansion? When a business makes a decision to expand, its rates liability will usually increase immediately after the work is completed. In turn, that additional rates liability creates more revenue for public services. I recognise, however, that the initial outlay, coupled with the associated increased rates liability, can be off-putting for some businesses that are waiting to take steps towards expansion. To that end, I want to progress rating policy so that the additional rates liability incurred is staggered. That may mean the difference between a business deciding to expand and deciding not to.

I am happy to announce that my Department will undertake a consultation process in the new year to progress development of the business growth accelerator policy. The consultation will seek views on policy options for using the rating system to aid business expansion rather than inhibit it, while also unlocking future increased rates income for local and central government. That unlocking of future tax-base growth will operate alongside initiatives that have been brought in since the restoration of the Executive last year, such as the Back in Business scheme.

As part of the review, we worked closely with the hospitality sector. Since the Executive returned, a central ask from that sector has been for an assessment of the valuation methodology for the receipts and expenditure method of valuation, where that is used for pubs and hospitality. Similar sentiments have been expressed in Scotland and England, and both jurisdictions have announced that they will review how the methodology is used there. I am pleased to confirm that we will take account of any findings of those review processes in order to assess any implications that they may have for our local valuation processes.

My Department has done significant work over a period of less than a year since the strategic review of rates was announced. We remain on track to facilitate changes for businesses by April 2026, provided that political agreement can be achieved to do so. I recognise that change is hard, but, if we keep doing the same thing, we will keep getting the same outcomes. People elected us to serve and deliver, and I want to deliver positive change, but that will require buy-in and partnership working.

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

I support a more progressive rating system, and I support more support for small businesses. To be clear, however, the Minister is not announcing either of those things today; he is announcing more reviews. If I were to list the consultations on and reviews of the rating system that have taken place since last February, the Deputy Speaker would intervene on me — I know that he likes to do that, but I will not test his patience — because it would take a very long time. To small businesses and others who are interested in a more progressive rating system, the strategic road map appears to be a road to nowhere. So that I can be clear, Minister, do you have any intention of changing the rating system before the end of the mandate, considering that, so far, nothing has happened?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

One criticism that I recall hearing from the Member is that we have not progressed reviews quickly enough. He now criticises me for progressing reviews too quickly. As the Member will be aware, the fact of the matter is that to change policy and legislation, there has to be a review framework. and there has to be consultation and engagement with the sector. Following that, we can come forward with either a policy change or legislative change. In my statement, I set out a number of areas in which, I believe, both policy change and legislative change will benefit our business sector, and I set a time frame within which I wish to make those changes. I assure the Member that I am dedicated to driving that agenda forward. I concluded my remarks by saying that partnership working in the Chamber and around the Executive table will be required if the changes are to be delivered. I believe that, when Members have had the opportunity to scrutinise what I am proposing, they will see the benefit to the business sector and the fact that it is the proper and right way to move forward. If we keep that in mind, progress can be made quickly.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I also place on record my thanks to his officials and particularly to Andrew McAvoy, who gives us regular updates on policy in the area. It is welcome that, having initially been announced as a 10-year process, the review is being brought down to two years, which is something that we discussed at Committee. Non-domestic vacant rating is raised regularly with me by businesses that are struggling to pay their rates when a dilapidated building next door to them is not paying rates. Minister, you said that there is potential to unlock a further £20 million of revenue. That is huge potential, which the Communities Minister also referenced yesterday with regard to housing. I welcome your mention of the need for a cross-departmental approach.

What is the estimated time frame for seeing this make a difference to dilapidated buildings in our towns for businesses and housing?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

It will require cross-departmental working. I am conscious of the AERA Minister's Dilapidation Bill. Through the rates process here, we can assist in regenerating our town centres. Centrally, that is the Communities Minister's role, although the AERA Minister is playing a role, and I can play a role as Finance Minister. With a fair wind, we can complete some of the work within the mandate. That will require some legislative changes to be made, and I have asked officials to start work on those immediately to see how quickly we can progress the matter.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, what engagement has your Department had with the Commissioner for Older People on changes to the early payment discount and maximum capital?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

There has been engagement on that through a previous review. While the Older People's Commissioner can obviously speak for herself, the commission is on record as saying that the review and proposals that we have brought forward are workable. Protections are in place for the most vulnerable in our society, and older people will come under those protections if the changes that we propose bring them into a category for that. That engagement has proven worthwhile, both to the commission, hopefully, and to my officials for planning a way forward on the proposal. As I said in my statement, change is difficult, but we have to do things differently and, as an Executive, look at areas where we can raise additional finances. I believe that the changes that I have proposed are fair and equitable and have protections in place for the vulnerable.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I welcome compressing the timetable from 10 years to two years and the intent to support small businesses and tackle vacant property. Minister, will the changes that you are proposing for supporting small businesses be possible without raising money elsewhere in the rating system? Why have we not seen the changes to the early payment discount or maximum capital value emerge from the Executive?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Some of the changes are possible with the non-domestic vacant rating policy. We have to identify finances to go towards more support for small businesses through the small business rate relief scheme. I could come to the Chamber and say, "I want to do this, but I need more money", I could look at myself and say, "Can you give me more money?", or I could bring forward proposals that identify from where within the current system we could raise finances that are fair and equitable and put protections in place, and we could then move forward in that direction. We have not yet had discussion or agreement at the Executive on the proposals. I continue to hope that that paper will be presented and that we can have discussion and make progress on it. I think that it is fair and equitable. If others have alternative proposals, I am open to hearing those as well.

Diana Armstrong (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Minister, thank you for the statement. I welcome the indication that the business growth accelerator will be looked at as a means of staggering rates for businesses in expansion. However, like other Members, I want to ask about timelines. Given the ongoing review of the valuation methodology for pubs and hospitality businesses, what tangible impact do you expect that to have on the hospitality sector by the end of the mandate? I am talking about real on-the-ground support rather than further data collection or consultations.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

It is worth noting that 75% of our small businesses receive support through the rates system. It costs the Executive somewhere in the region of, I think, a quarter of a billion pounds annually. That includes pubs and the hospitality sector, so quite a significant support package is in place. However, I thought that it was only right and proper that, given that Scotland and England are going through a process and will garner data and information that is similar to what we require for our system, we await their review. There is no point in my duplicating work that is going on elsewhere at this stage. Work is about to start, I understand. We will garner the information and challenges from that and see how we can support our business or what changes need to be made through that. I can understand some of the frustration that is in sectors out there about this, but we have to work our way through those processes and be mindful that significant supports are already in place.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Minister, I welcome the statement. Will you provide more detail on the business growth accelerator that you mentioned?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

That is a very innovative way to move forward and encourage our businesses that want to expand to do so. Quite understandably, when a business owner is looking at their future business plans and to expand, they will have to take into account whether their rates will go up as a result of that and whether, while they are establishing that expansion of their business, they will be able to afford it. If the proposal goes through, we will say to businesses, "Yes, move ahead with that expansion and create a larger premises. We will support you, at least in the first year of that expansion, in relation to your rates. We won't charge you for the additional space that you have". That will allow them time to develop that expansion of their business. If we can encourage more businesses to expand physically, that will be good news for our construction sector and our economy in general. I am delighted to be able to bring forward the proposal, and I hope that it will move forward quite quickly.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

I welcome that the Minister is investigating tackling blight and increasing funds for public services by increasing the level of liability for non-domestic vacant premises. The Minister will be aware of the need to disincentivise domestic properties — houses — being left vacant with reduced rates liability in certain circumstances. Does he have any intention of reviewing the removal of rates liability for domestic properties that are vacant and causing blight?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Taxation has a number of policy intentions. One is, obviously, to raise revenue. Another is to support habits that a Government want to progress. The revitalisation of our town centres, city centres and villages is important. Non-domestic properties lying vacant is a blight. The proposal fits in with work that other Ministers are doing.

As I said in my statement, all rating policies will be reviewed over the next number of years. That review will include whatever support or lack of support is in place at that stage. We want to see properties being brought back into use. The Communities Minister is facing challenges with social housing and housing. If I can assist in a way that brings properties back into use, whether for housing, commercial use or something else, I will do so.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister. It is good to see a progressive rating system being brought in. We have called for that for some time, particularly for small businesses; we want to see the regeneration of our town centres. Minister, you said that the changes are cost-neutral to the Department, but you also talked about an additional £9 million coming in. In addition, you talked about bringing businesses into the rating system. Will you outline what they are, what sectors you are thinking of, and what type of premises will see an increase in rates?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I am not exactly sure of the point that the Member is making. Apologies. All businesses pay some form of rates, with the exception of charity shops. My intention through the small business rate relief scheme is to support more businesses by looking at support from 20% up to 50% and looking at what categories those fall into. Non-domestic vacant rating is currently sitting at 50%. I want to see that rise over a number of years up to 75%, and then up to 100%. When that is fully operational, it will bring us in around £20 million extra. I will provide further clarity to the Member if I have not correctly understood the point that he made. My understanding is that all businesses are involved in the payment of rates of some kind. This is about how we support small businesses, enhance our town centres and city centres and move away from the blight of vacant properties.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

I thank the Minister. It is no surprise that the rating system is seen by many businesses as a barrier to their development and something that precludes a bustling high street. The statement referenced rental values. For some, the barrier is not the rental price but the rates payment on top of it. How will the proposals help those who wish to establish a business on the high street?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Rent levels are driven by the market and what people are prepared to pay, and I have limited ability to change that. However, if we support more businesses through the small business rate relief scheme, the burden of the rent that is placed on them will be lessened, because their rates will be reduced.

If they are prepared to expand, we will also support them through that proposal. There is a balance to be achieved in all of those things, but looking to expand the small business rate relief scheme is a good way forward.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for the statement. It is certainly nice to hear some of the positive proposals in the statement. Businesses will be glad to hear them. They will be even gladder to see them. It would be nice if we could get some indication of when that might be. Given that previous proposals have been sat at the Executive for nearly six months now without even making it on to the agenda, have the Minister and his colleagues considered invoking the three-meeting rule?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Across a wide range of topics, challenges and opportunities facing the Assembly and the Executive, we need to work in partnership with one another. Doing so will mean that there has to be give and take on all sides and being open to ideas and discussions around proposals on all of these things. The reality is that no one is expecting the Chancellor to announce a Budget that will alleviate the pressures that our public services, business communities and workers and families are under. Therefore, the Executive have to look at new and imaginative ways in which we can help ourselves. I believe that the proposals that I have outlined today and the proposals in the previous paper that I put before the Executive are imaginative and assist the Executive to meet their challenges and opportunities moving forward.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Minister, under your vacant rating plan, you say that your policy could raise £20 million. How much of the £20 million, do you estimate, will be net after administration and enforcement costs? Will that figure simply be added to the uncollected rates debt?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

As the Member knows from a previous debate here, the rates debt has reduced by 20%. We continue to take action on the rates debt. I want to see further reduction in that, but, when you are collecting the scale of revenue that we are collecting, there will be a certain amount of debt because of factors including representations from MLAs to my Department around trying to assist ratepayers who find themselves facing genuine challenges, so there is a balance to be got in all of those things. However, there are also those who will not pay or refuse to pay, and they will be pursued vigorously through the courts.

As for the estimated £20 million in revenue collection, at this stage, I am not sure what percentage will be used for what the Member has outlined. However, if we are bringing in significant extra revenue, there is a cost associated with collecting that revenue, but, as long as we collect more revenue in a fair and equitable way, the Member will, I think, accept that there are costs associated with that.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Minister, you talk about a more progressive system and fairer ideas. I want to expand on a previous point: what plans do you have to reform the rates system to disincentivise and financially penalise the people who are leaving tens of thousands of properties empty across the North? It should be illegal to allow properties to lie empty when around 50,000 people are on housing waiting lists. That could address the housing crisis and bring in large amounts of revenue. What plans does your Department have to tackle the issue?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

The non-domestic vacant rating policy that I am announcing today and the proposals for it will encourage property owners to make those properties usable again, whether that is by reletting it to a business or a business entering it because of the other small business rate relief enhancements that we want to do or because of the expansion of businesses or whether it is driven through the fact that a property owner may say to himself, "Well, if I continue to leave this former business property empty, I will have to pay increased rates on it. Why do I not use it for housing? Why do I not convert it into property?". Will it be more attractive when they put it on the market and housing associations perhaps purchase those properties moving forward? The proposals that I put before us today open up the property market to a challenge and an opportunity that, thus far, is only lying vacant and empty.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Thanks very much, Minister, for your statement. It shows that you are a Minister who is listening and is willing to take action. How will other rate reliefs, particularly those for people on low incomes, sit alongside any increase to the maximum capital value?

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Those protections remain in place and will continue to protect those people. If people find themselves having to pay a greater percentage of rates, because the maximum capital value rises, and if their income qualifies them for protections, those protections will continue. The Older People's Commissioner recognised that protections are in place in his response to the consultation. Both the proposals that the Member refers to and the proposals that I am announcing today are fair and equitable and protect the most vulnerable in our society.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Members, that concludes questions —.

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want some advice — it may not be for today — on the appropriateness of making oral ministerial statements on proposals that are not practical proposals in the sense that they are only ideas. I say that because, a year ago, an oral ministerial statement was made by the previous Finance Minister about changes to the domestic rating system that still have not happened; one week later, we got a written ministerial statement on the 2025-26 Budget. Will the Speaker's Office give us advice on the appropriateness of making an oral statement on proposals that are not happening and then making extremely substantive statements via a written statement?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Mr O'Toole, in the first instance, it is up to a Minister what they make a statement on and what they wish to make a statement on. However, the comments that you have made will be brought to the Speaker's Office for consideration.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Further to that point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker, what would be the appropriateness of the Opposition coming forward with any proposals or any idea?

[Interruption.]

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Members, we are straying somewhat from actual points of order. I will move on to the next item.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

The Speaker has received notice from the Minister for Communities that he wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that they should be concise in asking their questions and that there should not be long introductions.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I wish to make a statement to the Assembly on the funding and development of new social homes across Northern Ireland. I begin by recognising the efforts of our key partners in delivering new social homes via the new-build programme in times of constraint and uncertainty. The solid partnership arrangements between my Department, the Northern Ireland Housing Executive (NIHE) and housing associations ensure that there is a steady and increasing supply of new social homes for people on the waiting list. I am grateful for their steadfast commitment to delivering the programme. However, the Department and the sector face many challenges in relation to the budget required to support that work. Despite my efforts to secure an adequate budget allocation to meet the need for new social homes and my intention to continue to maximise delivery, I, along with the sector, have not received sufficient capital allocations in any budget rounds. Every party in the Chamber talks of their passion for housing and support for more social homes. At the Executive, we agreed a housing supply strategy with clear targets for housebuilding. In the Programme for Government (PFG), one of the few targets agreed was on social housing, yet I continue to receive insufficient capital funding. I cannot be the only one to make the case for housing.

Today, I have taken the decision to review the funding allocation to housing associations to ensure that we get the most out of every pound that we spend. This is an opportunity to look at the programme afresh and identify opportunities to be creative. We need to do more with less, collectively working to address the barriers to finance and social housing supply.

I met the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations (NIFHA), housing association representatives and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in late October to give them advance notice of the changes that I have announced. At that meeting, I advised the sector of the new indicative costs and grant rates for new build social homes that will be effective from 1 December 2025 to the end of March 2027.

New social homes are funded through a combination of grant from my Department and borrowing by the developing housing association, creating a match funding-style arrangement that gives value for the public money invested. Following careful consideration, I have decided to increase the benchmark costs — the assumed cost of building a new social home — by 13·7%, from an average of £181,164 to an average of £206,100. That reflects the increased costs to the sector due to inflationary increases, new building regulations and increases in Northern Ireland Electricity (NIE) connection charges, among other things. It is an acknowledgement that relevant costs have increased since the benchmark costs and grant rates were last changed, in 2023. However, while construction costs have increased, rents have also increased. As a result and in the interest of securing the maximum possible number of new social homes from the Department's budget, the proportion of grant paid by the Department for Communities for new social housing starts will decrease from an average of 54·2% to an average of 46·52%. To give certainty to the sector, those new benchmark costs and grant rates will be kept in place until the end of the 2026-27 financial year, unless there are very exceptional circumstances that require a change to the rates.

I have set out to the housing association sector my expectation that it, like the public sector, must deliver in challenging financial circumstances and strive for efficiencies. It will be for each individual housing association to decide how much private finance it can borrow and how much risk it can take on. The impact of that will be to make my budget allocation stretch further and enable us to build more homes with the funding that is available. I am asking housing associations to do more: drive innovation, find efficiencies and increase private financing to make up the small shortfall. However, let me be clear: I am not cutting funding to the programme. I am making changes to ensure that the £177·5 million allocated from my budget that will be spent this year on new social homes and the funds spent next year go as far as possible. Every new home matters.

I have listened to the housing association sector. That is why I have also announced reviews, which have been called for by the associations, of how we subsidise new-build social housing and the standards to which that housing is built. Our ambition is that at least some of the value-increasing measures that those reviews propose may be introduced to the development programme in the next financial year and that all the reviews are completed by September 2026.

Achieving the Programme for Government target of 5,850 social housing starts within this mandate will be extremely challenging, given the constrained budgets. Changes must be made. We must achieve more with less. I am fully committed to delivering on the PFG target and realising the longer-term ambition of the housing supply strategy to deliver at least 100,000 homes, of which one third will be social. Achieving those will require innovation and creativity and, ultimately, at the outset, adequate funding allocations.

Earlier this year, I chaired a housing round-table meeting that brought together key stakeholders to share knowledge on how to increase social housing delivery in the current challenging environment. My officials are taking forward work with the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and the wider sector on proposals aimed at increasing or improving delivery of the new-build programme in future years. As previously advised, I am bringing a proposal to the Executive to make better use of public land in a way that can act in lieu of grant and support the delivery of more affordable homes. We must maximise supply with the resources that we have. The whole-system issues, such as waste water capacity, planning and land availability, must be addressed to unlock the homes that we need. My housing supply strategy provides the framework for how we can do that, and, collectively, the Executive have committed to it. The quality of actions to implement it will determine our success in delivering the strategy vision.

I require an action plan that demonstrates real intent to remove barriers. Therefore, as it moves closer to being finalised, I have written to my ministerial colleagues to challenge them to propose actions that will genuinely deliver progress in meeting the significant challenges that we face.

I have also written to the other Ministers in the Executive to seek their support for a sufficient budget allocation to the social housing development programme to enable delivery against our commitments. I unashamedly make that case again today.

I can assure the House that I am committed to delivering value for money in the social housing development programme and to doing everything in my power to ensure that a sufficient budget allocation is made to enable delivery of our PFG target. However, the House should take note that I am not prepared to keep doing things the way that we have always done them. I will always seek to be innovative and to try new things to maximise delivery. That is what I have been doing since I took up post. I have used more financial transactions capital (FTC) for homes with cheaper rents; used the Northern Ireland Housing Executive's reserves to reduce temporary accommodation costs; done away with intimidation points to create a level playing field; and found new ways to subsidise public housing. Those are changes that we needed, and I will continue to bring in changes so that we can deliver more for the people of Northern Ireland.

I have played my part. Now it is time for the House and my Executive colleagues to rise to the challenge and take the decisive action that is needed to ensure that our shared ambition truly meets the needs of the people of Northern Ireland. I commend the statement to the House.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for his statement. The reduction of the housing association grant in other areas has either contributed to or coincided with a reduction in the number of homes delivered, although I appreciate that there will have been multiple factors at play. Come 2027, how will the success or otherwise of the Minister's decision be measured? Does he expect it to have any impact on rental costs for housing association tenants?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Rents have already gone up, which is one of the reasons why I am taking action today. Ultimately, success will be measured by the number of additional homes that would not otherwise have been delivered if we had stuck with the status quo. I am not cutting the funding for housing associations.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

[Inaudible.]

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member has already has his opportunity to ask the question.

I am not cutting the money that is going to housing associations; the £177·5 million is still there. I am cutting the amount per unit, so that other sources of private funding can be looked at. The Member seems to be annoyed about what I am doing, but it is quite clear that if I stuck with the status quo, not only would we not be building more homes, we would be building fewer homes because the costs have gone up. Those costs cannot be left in their entirety for the Department to shoulder. What I am proposing is fair and will enable more homes to be built and more investment in public housing.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for the statement. Minister, the Committee has asked in writing for further information on the change, given that it was announced during recess, which was more than two weeks ago. We look forward to receiving that information.

Who will carry the financial risk that is created by the reduced grant rate? I am particularly concerned about smaller housing associations in that regard. What assessment has your Department made of its borrowing capacity under the new arrangements?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am confident that the borrowing capacity exists for housing associations to continue doing their work and, through the changes, make sure that we are building more homes. It is right that we share the burden, and I commend housing associations for the work that they have done, often in challenging circumstances. However, we all need to do more, which is why I have asked housing associations to shoulder more as we move forward.

Of course, in return, there will be additional benefits for them. We are looking more widely at the design guides, including Secured by Design, and are providing housing associations with the stability of knowing what is coming. Altogether, there is a package of measures that, along with the changes that I have outlined, will have a net benefit and allow us to build more social homes, which is what it is all about. We have a target, and I am determined that we do everything in our power to meet it. Some of that is outside my control, but I will play my part, and today is another example of how I am working to achieve that.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his statement, particularly his commitment to being innovative and trying new things to maximise delivery. Does he have any figures on the economic value that building social housing brings to Northern Ireland?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

There is huge value from homebuilding for those who get the houses. That is why I have placed such emphasis on making sure that we have houses. I have said time and again in the Chamber that someone having a safe and warm home in which to live and grow up helps their life chances, and it takes pressure off other Departments. Huge economic value also comes from housebuilding in Northern Ireland. In 2024-25, the estimated economic impact of the social housing development programme was over £1 billion. It needs to be kept in mind that we are not just providing additional homes for people but creating economic benefit.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, I appreciate that your budget for new builds has been extremely testing, and I support your comments about housing associations, but there is a risk in your proposals, and it concerns how much the housing associations will be able to borrow in order to deliver the new homes. Are you satisfied that they have the capacity for the increased borrowing that they will have to take on? Will you clarify whether the new rate will affect houses that are in the process of being built or apply only to future applications?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The new rate will take effect from 1 December, so it will not affect houses that are already under construction or that begin construction before that date. Yes, the housing associations have the capacity. The borrowing facility is there, and the banks are satisfied that they will be able to provide the money. The Member talks about risk, but the bigger risk is in doing nothing, because that will result in fewer homes being built.

Time and again in the House, Members call for action — for things to happen — and action is what I am taking today. I am taking action to make sure that we build more social homes.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

The Minister advised my Committee colleague on the other side of the House that housing association rents have already gone up. Can he guarantee the House that rents will not go up further as a result of the change? If I am not taking liberties by asking, what co-design approach — we often hear about such an approach — was undertaken with housing associations to arrive at the new rate?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am happy to confirm that there is, as the Member would expect, regular engagement with housing associations. We hold quarterly meetings at official level, and I meet housing associations individually and collectively. The matter has been on the radar, and the housing associations have for some time been aware of the options that were in front of me. I met them a few weeks ago to outline the rationale behind what I am doing and the justification for it. I will continue to work with them. It will ultimately be for them to decide where they put their funding and where they build. They have the capacity to do that, however. The private finance is available that will allow us to do what this is ultimately all about, which is building more social homes.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Minister, you said that you intend to bring proposals to the Executive on greater utilisation of public land. Have you carried out any analysis of the amount of land that could be used for housing? Which Departments or other bodies will provide the bulk of that land?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I have been engaging with the Department of Finance on the matter. It is complex, but we are getting to a good spot. I have not been directly involved in identifying such land, but the Housing Executive has some information. Moreover, the Department of Finance and, in particular, Land and Property Services (LPS) have information about where that land would be. As time goes on, we will be able to identify land that would make good sites for social housing. Ultimately, we need public subsidy in order to build social housing. If Executive colleagues say that they do not have any capital or cannot give up any in order for us to build, I will lean on them and say, "There's a site that you have" or, "Here's another way in which you can help". We will explore every option, as we are not yet at the stage of identifying sites, but that new and innovative way of doing things could go a long way to contributing to the proportion of the cost that would fall to government. It will enable us to build more homes. That is being discussed, and I hope that it can be progressed soon.

Gary Middleton (DUP, Foyle)

Minister, I welcome your statement and the new initiatives that you are bringing forward to deliver more housing. If you had not made this intervention, what would the overall impact have been on social housing development?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

If we had maintained the grant rate where it was, we would be building fewer homes, and that would not be good value for money. That is why we have brought forward these measures today. Maintaining the grant rate would have meant fewer homes. The changes mean that we will not only keep up with what we have done in the past but be able to build more homes.

We are also looking at the design guides and standards. That is important. Housing associations have told me that the guides require many things that are not really necessary or value for money. That is why I want to work with them. If they say that they can build more homes at better value and that not all homes need to be built to the same specification, I want to help them with that. I am not always looking for more money; I am also looking for ways in which we can reduce costs. That is why today's announcement is so important.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement. The average grant rate is 46·5%. In Scotland, it is 55%, and in Wales, it is 67%. How did the Department arrive at 46·5%? What calculation was that based on?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

It is complex. In essence, there are total cost indicators (TCIs) and the housing association grant (HAG). The HAG reflects the uplifts that are identified by the Central Procurement Directorate's housing advisory unit. The HAG rate reflects the 30th percentile of rents and the average borrowing rate of 3·5%. Those are the benchmarks that are used to determine what is required, taking rental figures into consideration.

I am happy to provide the Member with more detailed information on that. It is not straightforward for those who are not involved in it every day, but it can be clearly set out. I will be happy to provide that to the Member, as I will to the Committee. I will perhaps also put it in the Assembly Library.

Maolíosa McHugh (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as a ráiteas.

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

Minister, you referenced reviews of the design standards to which social housing must be built. Can you confirm what the scope of those reviews will be? Will you continue to ensure that homes are built to a high energy efficiency rating and that they are suitable for people with disabilities?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes. I do not intend to change the energy efficiency standards of social homes. We want to make sure that our homes are as energy efficient as possible. However, some additional measures have been put in, for example, around lifetime homes. I want to make sure that we have provision for disabled people in Northern Ireland, but it does not make sense to ensure that every home is built to that standard when doing so could add considerable cost to a home that, over its lifetime, may never be used for that purpose.

We need to be smarter in how we build our homes and how we allocate them. If we can build more homes that are appropriate for people, we should do so, rather than have a one-size-fits-all model that ends up being more expensive. I absolutely believe that we should have homes that can be adapted and used for people who have additional needs, but there is no point in building them all to that standard if doing so results in fewer homes overall.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement and for his move towards sensible and pragmatic approaches to the budget situation. Minister, can you confirm that, at every possible opportunity in Budget and monitoring rounds, you have bid for the equivalent capital required to meet the housebuilding target that was agreed in your housing supply strategy and in the Programme for Government?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Finance Minister has just walked in. He could answer that question as well.

[Laughter.]

He will be able to confirm that, at every possible opportunity, I have bid for the capital that I have required to build homes.

I will continue to do that. Last year, we bid for £230 million, and, in total, we have received £177·5 million with, I hope, some additional money to come this year in monitoring rounds.

Ultimately, however, we need to make sure that we meet our targets. The Programme for Government had a clear target for housing. The actions that I am taking today are my attempt to make sure that we do everything that we can to increase the number of builds with the money that we have. We need more money, however. We need to increase that in order for us to meet that target. I have no doubt that the Finance Minister wants to make sure that we meet our social housing targets. The sector is watching, as are the construction industry and, most important, our constituents, so we need to make sure that a Budget is brought forward that gives us the capital that we need so that we can meet our targets.

This is not just about somebody having a home but about all the other things that come from that. I have spoken in the House again and again about the importance of housing and how a good, warm home can take pressures off elsewhere. We need to realise not just that this is about helping people to find somewhere to live but that it is an investment, so we need the money for that.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement. I am sure, Minister, that you are similar to all of us in the Chamber in finding that the lack of housing is one of the things that keep us busiest in our offices. We welcome the announcement. Some will be envious of the fact that it will cost £206,000 to build a social home given the quality of those houses, which should be lost on no one. That said, Minister, housing association rents are considerably dearer, which another Member remarked on. Is there any danger that those costs will increase, and, if so, do you have a mechanism to prevent that?

If I may add this, to be cheeky: how are we coming along on the funding for the Housing Executive, which can deliver at a much reduced cost?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Minister, you can answer all or some of those questions.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Those are the costs that have been provided as our estimates for building a social home. Many people will be surprised at their cost, which is why I want to make sure that we look at how we can make it cheaper to build social homes. The housing associations need to build those homes to a certain standard. I want to make sure that everything that we build is necessary. We will look at the design guide and at Secured by Design so that we can bring in additional certainty and do everything that we can to bring that cost down. We are also looking at how we can use land, because that is a massive part of the cost of housing overall. We are looking at all the elements of that. Rent is up to the housing associations, but I will take rents into consideration, as well as the return that housing associations get for their properties, when I am determining the housing association grant in future.

The Member mentioned the Northern Ireland Housing Executive. I want to see that revitalisation take place, and I am glad that that is now part of the fiscal framework discussions. We need to see that accelerated and delivered, however, because we are losing money every month by not proceeding with it and by not having the powers to invest in our stock and to build new stock.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, you indicated that you are prepared to undertake a review, which housing associations have welcomed. Who will carry out the review, which is to be completed by September 2026, and will it be co-designed with housing associations and tenants?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

It absolutely will include housing associations. I am more than happy to bring other voices into that review. The housing associations asked for a review, and I am keen that it is done as soon as possible. I was encouraged by my conversations with them, and I think that they want to move even more quickly on it. It is to their benefit and ours to make sure that it is done as quickly as possible. We will, of course, listen to others who may have something to bring to the table.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

Thank you, Minister, for coming to the House today with the statement. We know that housing associations are independent businesses in their own right that and that it is up to their boards to determine whether, with such a significant change, they can afford to continue to deliver new homes. Minister, will you give us a wee bit of insight into your basis for saying that you do not think that this will impact on the number of new homes that will be started?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The number of new homes that we could start would have been impacted if we had done nothing, because our budget is not increasing in line with the cost of building homes. We either build fewer homes, or we increase the funding that is available. In the absence of that funding being available from the Executive at this time, we are looking to housing associations and the private finance that they can draw on and that we are unable to draw on. I have consulted housing associations; I have had conversations with banks; and I have had conversations with the Housing Executive. We do not believe that this will have a net negative impact; in fact, we believe that it will help us to build more homes, and I hope that the Member will be supportive of that.

I thought that the Member was chuntering during my speech, but I think that it turned out to be a sneeze on her part

[Laughter.]

I hope that it was not negative noises coming from the bottom of the Chamber, and I hope that she is actually in support.

Alan Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for his comments and his statement. Will the reduction in the grant for housing associations impact on the viability of some schemes? If so, what will be the overall impact on the programme?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Ultimately, it will be for each housing association to determine and assess the viability of each of the schemes, but reviewing the grant levels will also come with a review on standards, so it is important that we ensure that the ecosystem for housing drives efficiency and innovation. In my conversations, I have been encouraged to hear that we are in a healthy lending environment. Housing associations have the ability to borrow, and that leverages the capital that we can invest in the programme.

Hopefully, housing associations will understand that, first, I am providing certainty over a long period and, secondly, I am reviewing the design guides and the standards to see how homes can be built more cheaply, ensuring that we can, therefore, build more homes. That is what I am trying to do, and it is a positive measure. The alternative would mean fewer homes. What I am doing today not only maintains the current trajectory that we are on but will mean that we can build more homes.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Minister, picking up on your proposal to the Executive to make better use of public land, I note that a recent planning application for a new build for Slemish College in Ballymena had to be withdrawn, as neither the Education Department nor the Infrastructure Department would pay for the new road to open up land. If you take the lead on the project to develop public land, will you take the view that interested Departments need to share the infrastructure costs to open up land to ensure that it can be developed for housing, schools and regeneration projects and ensure that sites such as that at Ballee Road West will not lie dormant due to the Executive continuing to work in silos?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

That is exactly why I brought forward a housing supply strategy that commits all Executive Departments to working towards the goal on the number of homes that we want to build and ensures that we work together to achieve that as soon as possible. Absolutely, there is a responsibility and an onus on everybody to make sure that they play their part, and I will not be found wanting in making sure that other Departments play the roles that they need to play. I want other Departments to give me the funding that is necessary, and I want other Departments to help on issues such as waste water and other infrastructure. I will play my part, and I hope that others will play theirs.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

You say that you have listened to the housing associations and the sector, but NIFHA has said that the proposals have been developed without consultation with the sector and that their full impact has not been assessed. Minister, the statement will mean, despite what you have said, that funding from your Department to housing associations will be cut. What assessment have you made of the impact that that will have on rent increases for people who are struggling already and living in housing association properties?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I repeat the point that doing nothing would result in fewer homes being built. I do not know whether that is the Member's position, but it certainly sounds like it. I want to build more social homes, in contrast to the Member. It is right that we take this step, because the alternative would mean that you would, potentially, push more people into the private rented sector and the rents that many people face there.

I make no apology for doing what I can to build more homes. The Member has opposed me on nearly every move that I have made to increase housing supply, which makes me think that I am doing something right.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Members, that concludes questions on the statement. Please take your ease before we move on to the next item in the Order Paper.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Executive Committee Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I call the Minister of Finance, John O'Dowd, to move the Further 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 single amendment for debate. The amendment will be debated under the group heading:

"Fees for Certificates of Baby Loss".

I remind Members that, once the debate on the amendment is completed, the Question on the amendment will be taken. If that is clear, we shall proceed.

Clause 11 (Certificates of baby loss)

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I beg to move the following amendment:

In page 6, line 5, leave out paragraph (e) and insert—

"(e) the charging of fees for—

(i) any copies of a certificate other than the original and the first copy of it (but not for an amended certificate or any copies of it);

(ii) the issue of any certificate (or copy) by an expedited service."

Members will recall from the Consideration Stage debate two weeks ago that the Bill will do three important things. First, it will place the temporary power contained in the Coronavirus Act 2020 that enables the remote registration of deaths and stillbirths and the electronic transfer of registration documents on a permanent footing. Secondly, it will rectify differences in the birth and stillbirth registration processes for some opposite-sex and same-sex female parents. Thirdly, it will enable the making of secondary legislation for the introduction of a baby loss certificate scheme. I am grateful to Members for the support that they have shown for the Bill to date and, in particular, for the favourable comments from all sides on the proposed baby loss certificate scheme.

I draw Members' attention to the report on our recent public consultation on the details of the baby loss certificate scheme that was published last week. The report sets out the views and opinions of the 1,182 people and organisations that responded to the consultation on a wide range of matters, including eligibility criteria, certificate content and changes. I am grateful to all those who took the time to contribute to the consultation, and I am sure that it was difficult for many contributors as they reflected on their personal sad experiences. The consultation will help to shape the scheme around the needs and expectations of families.

I turn to the amendment. It has always been my intention that the baby loss certificate scheme should be a compassionate service open to anyone who has suffered a loss early in pregnancy. Although a certificate cannot undo the pain of their experience, it can provide families with a formal recognition of their loss and validate their grief. For that reason, it has always been my view that there should be no charge when someone applies for a baby loss certificate. At Consideration Stage, two amendments were tabled on the matter of charges for baby loss certificates. Neither amendment was moved at Consideration Stage after I suggested that the Department would work with Members to agree a consensus amendment that would ensure that no family would be charged for the first two baby loss certificates. I thank Mr Frew, Ms Forsythe and Mr Tennyson for working with my officials to draft and provisionally agree the language of the amendment that I propose today.

The amendment is narrowly drawn. It states that the regulations may provide for there to be no fees for a first baby loss certificate and a first duplicate of that certificate and no charges for amended certificates. It makes arrangements for baby loss certificates that are similar to those for other life events in that it allows for the possibility of charges for subsequent copies of certificates and charges for an expedited delivery service, subject — this is the important part — to the agreement of the Assembly. The amendment will mean that a family applying for a first baby loss certificate will not be charged for it and that, if they require a duplicate copy for any reason, they will not be charged for that either. If the family discover an error in a baby loss certificate or want to add information to it, such as the name or sex of the baby, they will also be able to do that free of charge. No fee will be applied in respect of amended certificates.

That is consistent with the compassionate service that we are seeking to provide.

The proposed amendment will give the Department the flexibility to charge fees in the future, again subject to the agreement of the Assembly, for subsequent copies of the baby loss certificate when first and second copies have been issued. The amendment will also enable a fee to be applied, subject to the view of the Assembly, for the provision of a faster delivery service for a baby loss certificate. Although an option will be retained for a free standard delivery service, a faster service will enable an application for a baby loss certificate to be accepted and processed within one hour at General Register Office (GRO) public counters or issued on the same day for online or postal applications. Those arrangements will be in line with the faster services options offered for other life event certificates.

Using the faster service would not affect a person's entitlement to get their free first certificate and duplicate certificate. Any changes levied would be for the faster service not the certificate. Charges in those two circumstances for the faster delivery service and for a third subsequent certificate can be introduced only with the approval of the Assembly. As clause 11(5) sets out, the regulations will specify the detail of the scheme and follow the draft affirmative process, whereby Members will be given the opportunity to consider and debate any changes proposed.

It is important to me that the proposal is closely aligned with the findings of the public consultation on the details of the baby loss certificate scheme that the Department conducted over the summer. That told us that the public overwhelmingly favoured baby loss certificates being free and believed that amendments to certificates should also be free but that it was reasonable to charge for duplicate certificates. Although the public were narrowly split on the question of a charge for a faster delivery service, the amendment also seeks the power to charge for that service. We will bring specific proposals on that matter to the Assembly for consideration through the regulations.

One of the unfortunate aspects of making legislation is that we have to discuss matters such as fees. I appreciate that Members will remain focused on the purpose of the legislation and the purpose of the baby loss certificates. As legislators, we have to create legislation that is workable and future-proofed as best we can, and sometimes you have to get into areas that are unsavoury, for want of a better word, but those are the things that we as legislators have to do. However, I am sure that Members are focused on the purpose of what we are about today.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Thank you, Minister.

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

I will speak to the Finance Committee's scrutiny of the Bill as Chair of the Committee and to the one amendment on the Marshalled List.

Clause 11 gives the Department the power to introduce a baby loss certificate scheme. The House previously supported the introduction of baby loss certificates, and it was the Finance Committee that ensured that those were included in the Bill. I am really proud of the work of the Committee on a cross-party basis and the constructive work that took place with the Minister and his Department. There was unanimity on the Committee that such a scheme be introduced. Committee discussions were, therefore, centred mostly around the potential in the future for a monetary charge. The Department confirmed to the Committee that a charge could not and would not be introduced without the approval of the House, and that is an important point. Even following the passing, I assume, of the amendment, that measure would have to come forward via a draft affirmative resolution in the future.

As I said, 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 subordination legislation through the draft affirmative process, allowing the statutory rule to be debated and amended. The Committee agreed, therefore, to proceed without its own amendment on the issue, although individual Members submitted their own amendments, as the Minister said. During Consideration Stage, the Committee was aware of those amendments submitted regarding the potential for charging for a certificate but did not take a specific view on them.

I note that the amendments were not moved in order to allow the Department the space to develop its own amendment that clarified the position on the potential for charging for a certificate. The Minister has now submitted his amendment on the issue, and I state for the record that the Committee has not discussed the amendment and, therefore, has not taken a position on it. I further note that current and former members of the Committee who submitted the previous amendments worked with the Department to bring a resolution to the issue, and I thank them for that work.

I reiterate to the Chamber the Committee's unanimous support for the Bill. The ability to register deaths, in general, electronically and putting that into permanent legislation is an important consolidation of a change that happened during COVID. That will now be put on the statute book. Also, the ability to create a baby loss certificate is a really important opportunity for bereaved parents, as we have discussed and, I am sure, will discuss again at Final Stage. As I indicated, the Committee welcomes the Bill. We were critical to the introduction of the baby loss certificate provision. We undertook our scrutiny, and we are fully supportive of the process to move the Bill to Final Stage.

I will briefly say one or two sentences in a party capacity. I acknowledge that the Minister has worked constructively on this. It is an important example of how the legislative process should work. Obviously, it helps when there is an issue on which there is a degree of unanimity around the outcome, but it is important — I acknowledge the position that the Minister made clear — to say that this is not a desire to impose a charge willy-nilly at some point in the future. It is about designing legislation that is completely robust and can be operational when the secondary legislation enacting the scheme is finally brought forward. As a party, we are supportive of the position today and look forward to the Bill moving to Final Stage and then being enacted.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I welcome the continued progress of the Bill, which modernises our process for registering deaths and stillbirths and introduces a baby loss certificate scheme. It is important legislation with compassion and equality at its core. It will help to reduce stress for those who have suffered a bereavement by enabling the electronic transfer of documents, providing the same rights as others for same-sex female couples and ensuring formal recognition for parents who have lost a baby prior to 24 weeks.

During the Committee Stage, it was extremely poignant to hear directly from parents who have had a heartbreaking loss, and I welcome the Finance Minister's commitment to engage with parents to help shape the development of the baby loss certificate scheme. I again acknowledge those parents who shared their stories with us and thank them for their role in shaping the legislation. One significant aspect of their contributions was that we ensure that the scheme is as accessible as possible. I share the desire that I have heard from others in the Chamber that there should be no unnecessary barriers to people accessing a certificate during a time of immense loss, and I will therefore support the amendment, which prohibits charging for either the original certificate or its copy.

While our different political views are often on display here, this legislation is an example of positive changes that, by working together in partnership, this Assembly can provide for people in emotionally challenging circumstances.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I am pleased to speak at the Further Consideration Stage of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill. As I have previously stated, I am pleased that the House has worked together with a clear voice to agree this legislation, which embeds compassion into modernising the legislative process of registering deaths in Northern Ireland. I am also pleased that, through this new law, here in Northern Ireland, we are clearly recognising the precious life of every single unborn baby from the moment that they are formed within the womb. No longer will those babies who are heartbreakingly lost prior to 24 weeks of pregnancy be without formal recognition of their life.

The legislation introduces baby loss certificates. In the Finance Committee, we ensured that those were included in the Bill. It is really good to see that work delivered through the legislation. A key principle of the baby loss certificates was that they should be free of charge. The Department had advised that, as this was coming forward in legislation rather than policy in Northern Ireland, a safeguard provision to charge should be included. My colleague Paul Frew and I felt that that was not clear in stating the intention that a certificate and copy should be guaranteed as free, so we drafted an amendment. We are pleased to have worked with the Department on the wording of the amendment, and we support the Minister's amendment today, which encapsulates our intention.

I am pleased to speak in support of the Bill and to have played a small part in delivering this legislation. The ability to register death and stillbirths without having to attend a registration office in person is to be welcomed. The opportunity for bereaved parents to obtain a baby loss certificate is hugely significant. Having a new law in Northern Ireland that recognises that every life matters is something that we, as an Assembly and a society, should be proud of.

I express sympathy to all who have lost loved ones and are affected by this legislation. I hope that the process to deliver guidelines and practicalities progresses efficiently, with compassion remaining at the heart of the process. The DUP supports the Bill.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Thank you, Minister, for bringing the Further Consideration Stage today. On behalf of the Alliance Party, I am pleased to confirm our support for the Minister's amendment.

The registration of deaths and stillbirths, including the provision, now, of baby loss certificates, is extremely important to the many of us in the House who will have to go through registering one or more of them. A compromise arrangement has been agreed. The Minister's original proposal will be changed by the amendment thanks to the input of the DUP, which suggested the compromise of free certificates. Thank you for that, and thank you to all who worked together on it. This process is an example of how we can be a compassionate House. Through compromise, careful negotiation and debate, we have come to the stage at which we will have, at long last, baby loss certificates, and I thank you all for that.

I look forward to seeing the regulations that are published when the Bill is finally passed. It is key that they are as flexible as possible in the area of baby loss certificates to ensure that those who may not know the gender of their baby, or those for whom the date may be difficult to determine and so on, will have an opportunity to register their baby in a way that suits them.

I do not sit on the Finance Committee and I am not in the Department of Finance. It has been a difficult debate for me to take part in the debates on the Bill, so I thank all those who have taken evidence and been so careful with it. I worked for many years as a bereavement counsellor for people who had suffered miscarriages, and I have not been behind the door in telling everyone about my losses. However, today is an important day. I cannot make that more clear. Having baby loss certificates will be of value to parents, and it is important that we recognise that the difficult work that has been done.

It has been difficult to hear the evidence. It is a very emotive issue, but today we in this House can congratulate ourselves on doing something that is compassionate and has been needed for a long time. Thank you, Minister, and thank you to your Department.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I will limit my remarks to the amendment.

The debate is welcome, and the amendment brought forward by the Minister is very much welcome. The Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill is a very important piece of legislation for a number of reasons, one of which is that it deals with death. It is important, therefore, that we treat it with respect and sensitivity. Throughout the Bill's passage, we have done that in both the Chamber and the Committee for Finance.

I commend the work of the Committee for Finance, which I have now left. I took great interest in the Bill from the start and pushed the Department to bring it forward as quickly as possible and include baby loss certificates.

That brings me to the amendment. I place on record my thanks to the departmental officials, the Department and the Minister for listening and working with Members to get the best possible legislation. On this side of the House, we recognise that the Department, because it was making provision for baby loss certificates through legislation, needed to ensure that there were parameters in the regulations to which it would otherwise not have wished to stretch. However, it needed that cover in legislation in case something arose in the future. With that knowledge, we proceeded down the route of a compromise amendment to send to the Minister and ascertain his thoughts on it. We did not move it at Consideration Stage because we felt that there had been good engagement from the Department and the Minister. We took the Minister at his word at Consideration Stage, and we have been delighted with the engagement since then.

This is an example of the House operating in the best way possible. When we work constructively together, we should acknowledge it. Therefore, I thank the Minister and the Department and its officials for the work they undertook, with not only us — myself and Diane Forsythe from the DUP — but also Eóin Tennyson of the Alliance Party, to ensure that the amendment was tabled today and the House, including the two parties involved, was content and supportive of its wording.

That has come to pass.

Today is a really good day for the Assembly, and it is a better day for all those who have been and those who will be bereaved, especially those mourning the loss of a baby before 24 weeks. My heart goes out to those who have suffered in that way, but at least they know that the Assembly and the Department are listening.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I will briefly speak against the amendment. I have said previously that such an amendment goes against the spirit of the Bill and even against what the Minister said at the Bill's earlier stages. It also goes against the heartfelt and emotional evidence that we received at the Finance Committee. It is unlikely that people will ever request more than one copy of a certificate. If they do, we should presume that it is for a valid, humane and possibly emotionally charged reason. Imposing a charge is unnecessary, and no rationale has been provided for it, apart from the possibility of a situation arising in the future. Even then, that could be traumatic and upsetting for people who have suffered a stillbirth, baby loss or other tragedy. For that reason, I oppose the amendment. I appreciate that I may be in an opposition of one, but I am happy to put my position on the record.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I call the Minister of Finance to make a winding-up speech.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I thank all the Members who contributed to the heartfelt debates on the matter, who corresponded with my office and who otherwise engaged meaningfully to help push forward this important Bill. I am grateful for the support from across the House for the element of the Bill that establishes a legal footing for a baby loss certificate scheme. I particularly thank the Members who spoke so sensitively on the matter and those who worked with my officials to draft and provisionally agree the language of today's amendment. I also express my gratitude to the Committee for its work on the legislation.

I tabled an amendment that will ensure that the vast majority of families will never face a charge for a baby loss certificate. It will happen only in exceptional circumstances, if that is the will of the Assembly. I urge Members to continue to support the passage of the Bill and to support the amendment in order to ground in permanent legislation the remote registration practice for deaths and stillbirths, to remove inequalities in registration procedures and to provide for the establishment of a baby loss certificate. Each of those important steps will contribute to the building of a more equal, empathetic and efficient registration service for people at key points in their lives. I commend the amendment to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

That concludes the Further Consideration Stage of the Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Speaker.

I thank Members for the way in which they have conducted themselves throughout the debates on the Bill thus far. The Assembly is to be commended for its work on the Bill.

Members should take their ease for a moment while a change is made to the Chair.

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I beg to move

That the draft Farm Sustainability Payment Scheme (Eligibility etc) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 be approved.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I am grateful for the opportunity to propose the motion. By way of background, the sustainable agriculture programme (SAP) represents a bespoke programme of farm support that is targeted to meet the needs of Northern Ireland and seeks to implement policies and strategies that benefit the environment and support our economically significant agri-food sector.

The sustainable agriculture programme has been developed with a range of agriculture and environment stakeholders, including the agricultural policy stakeholder group (APSG), which has brought robustness to the development process. As part of the roll-out of the sustainable agriculture programme, the farm sustainability payment (FSP) scheme is planned for introduction in 2026 and will replace the current farm sustainability transition payment (FSTP). The FSP, which is expected to attract approximately 22,000 applications annually, will act as a balance between providing a safety net that will help a farm business to withstand shocks that are beyond its ability to manage effectively and encouraging farm businesses to become more environmentally sustainable, efficient and resilient.

The introduction of FSP will see the roll-out of the following key policy changes: implementation of the historical years exercise; progressive capping; new land eligibility rules; new farm sustainability standards to replace cross-compliance; and the introduction of conditionalities. The Farm Sustainability Payment Scheme (Eligibility etc) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 will give my Department the legal powers to introduce the farm sustainability payment and the various elements outlined with effect from 1 January 2026.

By way of background, a consultation exercise on the proposed farm sustainability payment scheme, along with other elements of future agricultural policy, was undertaken in late 2021, and the responses informed policy decisions that were announced by my predecessor in March 2022. Any decisions that I have taken subsequently in relation to scheme requirements are intended to have a positive impact on FSP applicants and the wider agricultural community. For example, one decision had been to increase the minimum claim size for FSP from three hectares to five hectares. Following further consultation with the AERA Committee and stakeholders, I decided that the minimum claim size for FSP will remain at three hectares. Applicants to the FSP scheme in 2026 will therefore need to activate three entitlements on three hectares of eligible land to meet FSP requirements.

The historical years requirement was included in the Farm Sustainability (Transitional Provisions) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025, which were made earlier this year. The regulations being debated today amend the transitional regulations and clarify that businesses that do not meet the historical years requirement will not be eligible for the FSP scheme in 2026 only and that their entitlements may be transferred only to an existing eligible farm business. The Farm Sustainability Payment Scheme (Eligibility etc) Regulations introduce progressive capping of the FSP payments, phased in over two-year period, for payments over £60,000, with capping levels increasing in bands based on the size of payments.

As I stated, the policy intent of FSP is to provide agricultural support to act as a balance between providing a safety net that will help a farm business to withstand shocks that are beyond its ability to manage effectively and encouraging farm businesses to become more environmentally sustainable, efficient and resilient. High support payments can encourage unwarranted risk-taking and reduce the incentive to manage risk within a farm business. By introducing progressive capping, my intention is to strike a balance between providing a safety net that helps a farm business to withstand shocks that are beyond its ability to manage risk effectively and dampening the incentive to be efficient and competitive and to manage risk proactively.

The decision to introduce progressive capping of FSP payments was announced in 2022, giving businesses time to adjust. In addition, progressive capping is being introduced over two years, with 50% of final capping deductions being introduced in the first year and full implementation in the second year. Phasing that in over two years will allow farm businesses time to adapt.

The regulations also introduce simplified land eligibility rules for the FSP scheme compared with those that were in place previously. The objective of the revised rules is to establish practical land eligibility rules that complement the FSP scheme's objectives and that can be easily understood and efficiently and effectively controlled. The regulations include a list of features and land use types that will be ineligible for the FSP scheme, such as building sites, public and private gardens, public parks, golf courses and airstrips. To support the simplified land eligibility rules and mitigate any unintended consequences, the regulations amend the eligibility requirements for the FSP scheme to state that only active farmers undertaking agricultural activity are eligible to apply. They must also have management control of the land used to activate the entitlements. Consequently, the regulations require applicants to the FSP scheme to carry out agricultural activity on at least 3 hectares of land used to activate entitlements. However, where an applicant submits a claim for fewer than 5 hectares, they must carry out agricultural activity on at least 2 hectares of land.

To ensure equality across schemes, the land eligibility rules introduced by the regulations will also apply to environmental farming scheme (EFS) higher agreements made by my Department before the date on which the regulations come into operation. The regulations legislate that, in order to receive their full payment and to ensure that farm businesses gain the maximum benefit from the schemes, applicants to the FSP scheme will be required to meet the following conditionalities to drive the uptake of data schemes that are critical for soil health, carbon management and genetic improvement. The conditionalities will be phased in.

The first conditionality is participation in the soil nutrient health scheme (SNHS). That scheme has been developed to assist farm businesses in planning their farm nutrient management more effectively. It will help to facilitate improvements to our water environment and future platform for carbon measures. The information provided by the scheme will allow farm businesses to better target the application of crop nutrients, reduce nutrient waste and help to increase farm profitability. To meet the conditionality, farm businesses must have registered for the soil nutrient health scheme and completed the training offered to them by the close of the single application form window on 15 May 2027. For farm businesses that are not compliant at that stage, the regulations legislate that a 10% reduction will be applied to their farm sustainability payment in 2027. That reduction will be increased to 15% for continued non-compliance in 2028 and will continue to be applied at 15% until the conditionality has been met.

The second planned conditionality is participation in the bovine genetics project (BGP). The bovine genetics project is of significant interest to industry and government due to the benefits of breeding animals with improved health and welfare, enhanced production and efficiency, a lower carbon footprint and lower pollution potential. Genetic improvement is identified as a key measure in the bovine tuberculosis Northern Ireland blueprint for eradication. It is also one of the measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the draft climate action plan 2023-27 and is one of the mitigations identified in the draft ammonia strategy. My Department is delivering the project in partnership with the agri-food industry through a not-for-profit company called Sustainable Ruminant Genetics Limited (SRG). SRG is providing industry leadership and is working with my Department to deliver several key functions, including the supply of industry data and the promotion and marketing of the project to producers and other stakeholders.

The bovine genetics conditionality requires farm businesses with bovine animals to register for the project and complete the training offered to them by the close of the single application form window on 15 May 2028. As with the soil nutrient health scheme, there is conditionality for farm businesses that are not compliant at that stage. The regulations legislate that a 10% reduction will be applied to their farm sustainability payment in 2028. That reduction will be increased to 15% for continued non-compliance in 2029 and will continue to be applied at 15% until the conditionality has been met. The regulations also legislate that penalties for failure to meet FSP scheme conditionalities should be applied concurrently.

A third conditionality of participation in the carbon footprinting project is also planned. That conditionality is not included in the regulations as the timeline for roll-out of the project has still to be set. The regulations reset the two-year entitlement confiscation rule from the commencement of the scheme, meaning that no entitlements will be confiscated for non-activation in 2026 because the FSTP and the FSP schemes are being treated as two separate schemes

The technical changes included in the regulations define the order in which my Department will apply scheme penalties, as follows: first, the over-declaration penalty, which includes duplicate fields; then, the late claim penalty; then, conditionality reductions; and, finally, farm sustainability standards (FSS) penalties. Under-declaration and late fee penalties have been removed, and the penalty for over-declaration of land has been increased from 1·5 times the difference found to twice the difference found. Preliminary checks will no longer be mandatory. My Department retains the authority to implement other checks, as required. The mandatory, on-the-spot checks inspection rate has been removed and replaced with a requirement for my Department to define the rate, as land eligibility controls will be carried out using remote sensing techniques, thereby completely removing that requirement.

The regulations remove penalties that exceed 100% of the payment due in respect of what were previously area-based payments under pillar 2 of the common agricultural policy, chiefly, agrienvironment and forestry payments. Those penalties apply to a very small number of businesses and were complicated to administer, as they involved a deduction to payments in following years. Finally, the regulations simplify the requirements regarding control reports for farm sustainability standard checks.

That concludes my overview of the Farm Sustainability Payment Scheme (Eligibility etc) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025. I thank the officials who have engaged with the Committee to date on what is a complicated area of legislation, and I am happy to answer any questions that may arise as a result of the debate.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I apologise for not being in my seat at the start of the debate, as proceedings have moved rather quickly today.

The Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs has been scrutinising the draft regulations over a number of meetings. I rise to represent the view of the Committee, and, at the end, if I have a few moments, I will share that of the Ulster Unionist Party. The Committee is unable to support the motion unanimously, having voted four members for and four against. In its consideration, the Committee engaged substantively with the Department, having received initial oral briefings on the scheme from officials on 26 June. If we track the regulations back to the Department's consultation on sustainable agriculture programme proposals and the ambition for a resilience payment in 2021, it was at least heartening to hear that the Department is now seeking to make regulations that are planned to take effect on 1 January 2026.

On 9 October, the Committee received an oral briefing from officials on the SL1 for these draft regulations, and, for the record, the Examiner of Statutory Rules advised that the SR was not drawn to the special attention of the Assembly. The stated ambition of the Department was that the farm sustainability payment should provide a balance between providing a safety net for those financial shocks, to which the Minister referred, that farm businesses cannot be expected to manage. It is also about encouraging farm businesses to become more environmentally sustainable, efficient and resilient. The regulations do indeed help to bring those key policy changes to the fore.

Regarding the implementation of the historical years exercise, there are new, simplified land eligibility rules, new farm sustainability standards to replace cross-compliance and progressive capping for payments above £60,000. To qualify, applicants will also have to fulfil certain conditionality requirements, such as participating in a particular scheme or project. Non-compliance will lead to penalties that will see a reduction in the FSP until that conditionality has been met or restored. It is apparent from the recap that there was plenty for the Committee to consider.

I will make some points on the Committee's agreed position, but I am confident that Committee members in the Chamber will add their particular positions articulately and clearly as the debate progresses. Concerns were raised, particularly in placing the phased-in conditionality on payments. That was viewed by some members as a further imposition on farmers without sufficient clear incentives, and some members questioned whether enough work had been done to gain the confidence of farmers. The Department has told us that it does not want farm businesses to receive penalties for non-participation in the bovine genetics project and the soil nutrient health scheme but, instead, wishes farm businesses to participate in the schemes to gain the benefits that they will deliver.

You will understand that the Committee was not able to agree that there was the required level of assurance for farmers that the conditionality aspect was clear and did not penalise non-participants unduly. Further concern was raised that some farmers who may not be fully aware of the conditionalities would see a penalty being imposed and that the risk of additional compliance requirements on an already heavily scrutinised sector perhaps adds its own risk, and certainly causes concern, for farming families. The Committee was pleased to note that the College of Agriculture, Food and Rural Enterprise (CAFRE) is planning communication, promotions, training and awareness events on aspects of the conditionality for farmers, agents and other agriprofessionals to ensure that farmers can avoid finding themselves in a position where a penalty would be applied. However, the Committee does not agree that the carrot and the stick are balanced in that case.

On the matter of progressive capping, officials advised that that feature will be introduced, as it is believed that high support payments can encourage unwarranted risk-taking and reduce the incentive to manage risk within the farm business. Concerns were expressed that that would be viewed as a disincentive to progress for larger farms with no alternative income sources, which may require higher levels of investment and therefore carry a greater risk of debt, given their size, and that it may also place a brake on entrepreneurism in that vital sector.

I hope that I have reflected the concerns raised by the Committee about the regulations. In short, those opposed to them, including me at that point, were really concerned about the balance between incentives and capping, penalties and conditionalities. As I mentioned earlier, Committee members will, I am sure, add their own thoughts and considerations.

In conclusion, before I add my own words, the Committee was unable to recommend that the draft Farm Sustainability Payment Scheme (Eligibility etc) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 be approved by the Assembly, but Committee members will get their chance to vote on the regulations and speak in the debate.

On behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on the draft Farm Sustainability Payment Scheme (Eligibility etc) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025. I do so in a spirit that is firm, constructive and rooted in the Ulster Unionist Party's unwavering support for our farming families, our agri-food sector and the future resilience of Northern Ireland.

At the outset, it is right to recognise that the scheme was not created overnight. It is the culmination of a suite of support consultations launched by the then Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Edwin Poots, back in 2021. It is equally right to acknowledge that the conditionalities that were proposed at that time, which are perhaps the most difficult part of the regulations, have been the most technically challenging to get our heads around. That would secure assurances, clarity and workable timetables. It has taken the Department time to develop that and to provide confidence not just to us as legislators but to the farming and agri-food sector. However, that is the reality of trying to strike a balance between providing a dependable basic payment that protects farm viability and driving the broader ambition for a better environmental stewardship programme, improved soil health, lower carbon emissions and long-term farm sustainability. I am sure that most Members recognise that reconciling all those aims is difficult, but it is necessary if we are serious about the future of Northern Ireland and food production here.

A key part of that in the presentations must be the bovine genetics programme. It is here that some of the greatest long-tail benefits can be realised, and we should be very confident and clear when we speak about it. Better genetics mean more efficient livestock, improved fertility, reduced methane intensity and stronger disease resistance. That includes, importantly, helping to reduce the spread and impact of bovine TB, which we have talked about many, many times in the Chamber. Fewer sick animals, lower losses and a lower carbon footprint are wins not simply for farm families but for the economy and the environment that we share.

I appreciate that conditionality has raised concerns, and it should. I have consistently made it clear that any new requirements must be introduced fairly, proportionately and with proper support. Farmers must know what is expected of them and have access to the training and tools that are needed to meet those expectations. We welcome CAFRE's commitment to communication, training and awareness events, because no farmer should ever fall into penalty through confusion or lack of information.

There are, however, areas where the Minister has listened, and that listening matters. The reduction in the minimum land size requirement from 5 hectares to 3 hectares is a victory for common sense and fairness, and we thank the Minister for that. It ensures that smaller family farms — the backbone of our rural economy — are not pushed out or penalised simply because of scale. Likewise, the Minister's assurances to the hundreds of farmers who have been caught in the historical years issue will offer some confidence. I assume that that will only apply in 2026 and that, going forward, the scheme will operate annually, with the ability to buy and sell and purchase entitlements, therefore restoring eligibility.

The Ulster Unionist Party supports the scheme because it supports farm families. However, our support comes with a long-term vision: food security, energy security, climate responsibility and economic opportunity all working together for our rural areas. We cannot pit one against the other. Northern Ireland has the opportunity to lead the way: from better genetics to better soils; from sustainable livestock to the development of anaerobic digestion technologies, biogas capacity and decarbonised rural energy settings; and in systems that complement, not compete with, food production. Our farming future must be one of resilience, innovation and fairness. The scheme is not perfect — no scheme ever is — but it is a step towards equipping our agri-food sector for the challenges and opportunities for the next generation.

Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, with those comments, I confirm that the Ulster Unionist Party will support the regulations and our ongoing commitment to Northern Ireland's farming families, our countryside and our shared future.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you, Robbie.

Given the time and the fact that the Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm, I propose, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue at 2.45 pm after Question Time, and Patsy McGlone will be the first Member to be called to speak.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 12.56 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions — Education

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Questions 4 and 6 have been withdrawn.

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

1. Ms Hunter asked the Minister of Education why capital funding was not secured for a new, purpose-built site as part of the development plan for the new Causeway Academy. (AQO 2715/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Education Authority (EA), as the proposer of the development proposal to establish the new Causeway Academy, is proceeding with its implementation. The new Causeway Academy will open in September 2026 and will operate across the three existing sites. The EA is working with the school’s principal designate on the configuration of the three sites. The approach will be student-centred with the objective of minimising movement for students throughout their post-primary career. It will maximise the educational experience and achievement of all students, whilst allowing exam year groups to complete their education on their current sites. Students will also benefit from a familiar environment and understanding the established routines, relationships and support systems on their current site. A communications plan is in place to provide updates to current and prospective pupils, parents, staff, governors and the wider school community at key times.

While there was support among stakeholders for a single-site solution for the new school, the cost of approximately £20 million that was presented to me was simply not affordable within my Department’s current capital budget envelope. The costs to support the outworking of an approved development proposal are usually modest, connected with rebranding, signage, toilets and modest additional accommodation. Whilst it is not ideal, newly amalgamated schools will, in the main, operate on a split-site basis until they secure a place to advance in planning under the major capital works programme, following a call for applications.

The £20 million costs were not expected or anticipated when the development proposal was approved. My Department has never had such significant day-1 costs arising from a development proposal or committed to such significant day-1 works without the full rigors of a major capital works call for projects.

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

Thank you, Minister. At the time of the proposed amalgamation, the school was described as a flagship school for the whole island, yet we have had delay after delay, the interim board of governors resigning and three school communities feeling abandoned. I have spoken to their prinicipals. When will we get funding for a single-site campus? When will the plans begin?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I understand the frustration but also the ambition for the school to be delivered in a new-build setting. As I outlined, when the development proposal was approved, it was not anticipated that there would be a £20 million capital requirement for a day-1 solution to provide a single-site facility. The Department faces considerable financial challenges with a significant number of major new capital builds and school enhancement programmes, as well as the special needs provision that has to be given first call on expenditure. I will continue to make the case to my Executive colleagues for funding for capital expenditure.

I want to make sure that the work continues — that is happening with the current arrangements of an interim board of governors and a principal designate — to provide the best possible opportunity for the school to operate on three sites. I share the ambition for a future single-site solution, but we are somewhat constrained by those significant financial challenges.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

Can the Minister detail the communications strategy that is in place for the three-school campus model?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for the question. Mr Bradley has been a vociferous campaigner for the three schools concerned and clearly wants the single-site solution. He has made that clear to me on a number of occasions when he has made representations on behalf of his constituency. I know that he will continue to unapologetically advocate on behalf of the schools to get the single-site solution up and running.

We will continue to engage with the Education Authority on the communications approach. The EA proposed the development proposal for the new school, and it is taking forward that approach. A Causeway Academy newsletter has been issued to staff and parents that provides milestone updates on the new Causeway Academy. A plan is in place to provide further updates to current and prospective pupils, parents, staff, governors and the wider school community at key times. The EA will continue to work with the principal designate on the configuration of the sites for the opening of the new school on 1 September 2026. When that has been confirmed, the principal designate will issue the relevant communications via newsletter and social media.

I commend Mr Bradley for the work that he continues to do. He has expressed to me his concern and his understanding of the reasons for the withdrawal from the interim board of governors by governors from one of the schools. I want all the stakeholders to be able to engage on this, and we will continue to work towards that.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Minister, the EA's handling of the amalgamation of the three existing schools to form Causeway Academy has been extremely poor. What commitment will you give to finding a permanent single-site solution for the school? Will you commit to attending a cross-party meeting with the principal designate and local MLAs to try to resolve the list of outstanding issues ahead of its opening in 2026?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I have engaged on the issue not just in my Department but with the Education Authority as the proposer of the new school and as the body responsible for taking forward the capital requirement of £20 million that was indicated for the day-1 costs associated with the single site. I will continue to engage on the issue. When the decision was taken, the decision maker at the time — it was not me — did not anticipate such a cost being associated with finding a single site for day 1. Other schools operate on split-site solutions, so it is not unusual to do so as we continue to work towards providing a single-site facility.

If we really want to address capital needs, we should not look just at those of the proposed new Causeway Academy. I have 114 projects in the major capital programme. Of those, 42 have been completed; six are on-site; 14 are at the technical design stage; 14 are at the early design stage; and 38 are either at the feasibility stage or on hold. The projected time frame to complete that list runs to decades, and that is before we add Causeway Academy. If Members are serious about providing solutions, as, I believe, they are, we need an Executive that will allocate capital funds on the basis of their priorities so that I can take forward the demands that Members rightly make on behalf of their constituents. We cannot do that if funding does not follow what people articulate in the Chamber.

Órlaithí Flynn (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

2. Ms Flynn asked the Minister of Education for an update on the schools that have been selected as part of the curriculum-led capital investment programme pilot scheme for covered sports areas. (AQO 2716/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Officials are working through the necessary checks on the schools that have self-nominated, and I will make an announcement soon. It is my intention then to issue a written statement detailing the primary schools that will participate in the pilot exercise for covered outdoor sports space provision.

Órlaithí Flynn (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Minister, you will remember our conversation at Bunscoil Phobal Feirste about the lack of outdoor space and, in particular, the high number of special educational needs (SEN) pupils at that school, which is the case at many of our schools. Feedback from the EA suggests that Health does not seem to be at the table when it comes more broadly to special educational needs support and specialised services in our schools. Are you aware of those issues? What is being done to support our SEN pupils?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am aware of those issues, and they are a cause of deep frustration to me; indeed, I am concerned that the increased financial pressures on my Department are a result of the withdrawal of services by some of our health trusts and the Department of Health as it seeks to mitigate its projected overcommitment. Schools are having to pick up the pieces, but, where we have children who require additional support, that cannot fall on the shoulders of just the Department of Education and our school leaders. We need our health professionals to be empowered by the trusts and the Department of Health to support those children. Schools are there to provide an education, but, where pupils have increasing medical needs and complexities, we need the Department of Health to step up. My fear is that the Department is stepping back, and a number of principals have raised the same concern. That is a retrograde measure about which I have raised concerns.

Alan Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

What criteria were applied to applications for the pilot exercise for the provision of outdoor covered sports spaces?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I hope to make an announcement about that soon. A call for applications was issued in August. It went to all primary schools seeking to be considered for the pilot exercise. Some 213 schools responded for inclusion in the pilot exercise. That indicates the level of demand and need, but, in order to have an effective pilot scheme, we will be able to take forward only about 10% of applications. My officials have advised schools that the initial pilot for the 20 successful applications will be drawn up using an element of random selection. I want to ensure that there is a mix of school sectors represented. That mix will include urban and rural schools and will be based on school enrolment figures. My officials are working through the necessary checks of how the criteria will be applied through the process, but, as I said, I hope to make an announcement shortly.

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

The recent Ulster University study 'Sport is NOT a luxury' revealed that 85% of parents believe that sport helps children to manage stress, yet, sadly, cost prevents many children from participating. Will you commit to introducing a statutory minimum of 120 minutes of physical education a week in all schools in order to support children's mental health, reduce inequalities and allow every child to have the opportunity to be part of a team?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I will do my best to link my answer to the question. Physical literacy is an important aspect of the school curriculum. Principals have raised issues about the lack of facilities to enable pupils to get 120 minutes of physical education, particularly outdoor activity, a week. The pilot scheme is therefore designed to provide what, for some, may be a covered outdoor area that can be protected from the elements, meaning that some physical activities can take place.

The Member's view is one that I share. It is hugely important for our young people to be engaged in sport not just for its physical benefit but for its benefits for overall well-being. Sport creates great opportunities for social interaction and developing leadership skills. It creates a wider network of friendships and peers in a school setting. All of that helps children feel part of a whole-school community, which then benefits their academic attainment in a classroom setting.

The Member is right to highlight the issue, and I make common cause with him. The pilot scheme and the other work that I am taking forward in the area, as well the provision of synthetic football-type pitches for the post-primary sector, is being done to try to provide the appropriate school estate for the physical education curriculum to be delivered more effectively.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

3. Ms Egan asked the Minister of Education for an update on the publication of new guidelines on school uniforms. (AQO 2717/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The guidelines on school uniforms follow the provisions in the School Uniforms (Guidelines and Allowances) Bill, which passed its Final Stage in the Assembly on 13 October. The legislation will come into operation on the day after the Bill gains Royal Assent, at which time the duty on the Department of Education to issue the guidelines and lay them in the Assembly, as well as the duty on schools to adhere to them, will go live.

While the Bill awaits Royal Assent, I instructed my officials to issue a copy of the guidelines to schools to assist them in making sure that their uniform policies are compliant for the 2026-27 school year. The school uniforms guidelines were therefore issued to schools on 12 November. I also instructed my officials to provide a copy to the Education Committee on that day.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, Minister. In the guidelines, the definition of "excessive costs" is:

"higher costs than lower income households can reasonably be expected to afford".

What do you think is reasonable for a low-income household to pay for a child's post-primary school uniform?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

There are two points to consider. The first is that we are consulting on a cap. We made provision in the legislation that we could introduce a cap. The cap could be made up of two component parts: either a financial limit or a limit on the number of items that pertain to a school's uniform provision. Alternatively, it could be a hybrid model, using both. We will consult on what that would look like. We were prudent, however, and we put the powers in primary legislation so that, were we to introduce a cap, having carried out our proper due diligence, we would be in a place to do that.

The Bill that was passed by the Assembly gives legislative underpinning to the guidance, which we have enhanced. The guidance was already there, and schools were aware of what they should be doing, but now they have to do it, because of the legislation that was passed. Affordability is at the very core of that legislation. That was the number-one issue that came out when we consulted with our stakeholders. It was all about affordability. That was the key aspect, which now has to be central for schools as they develop their school uniform policies, carry out their reviews and consult with parents, pupils and stakeholders. The transparency that is associated with that must demonstrate how schools have taken the underpinning principles around affordability into account.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

How have legal advice and the views of schools informed the guidelines?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

We sought legal advice on the draft guidelines throughout the process. The guidelines were tested for their workability through focus groups that we conducted with teachers and parents in June. That highlighted the need for further legal advice at that time to ensure that there was clarity and that the guidelines would be workable and would deliver for parents and schools. The legal advice resulted in the updated guidelines, which were set out clearly. Feedback on the guidelines has been provided by principals recently, and the guidelines have been updated where that was appropriate. Ultimately, the guidelines must follow the Bill's requirements; they follow the legislation that was passed. I assure the Member that legal advice was sought throughout the process, and that has informed the way in which the guidelines have been produced.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Does the Minister agree that it is frustrating that some parents report that schools do not permit children to wear coats to school, nor do they provide somewhere for coats to be stored? That is a practical concern, coming into winter.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Constituents have raised that issue with me. When it comes to pupils wearing coats to school, it seems that schools give priority to having the school uniform and emblem on display, even when children and young people need protection from inclement weather. Schools need to reflect on that. It is important that our young people can get to school and are comfortable when they are in school. They will not be comfortable if their uniform is saturated as a result of the weather. If schools prohibit their young people from wearing an overcoat and insist that they should wear only a school blazer, meaning that they are not protected from the elements, that is wrong, and they should put that right.

Diana Armstrong (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

5. Ms D Armstrong asked the Minister of Education when the report on the independent review of teacher workload will be published. (AQO 2719/22-27)

Maolíosa McHugh (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

8. Mr McHugh asked the Minister of Education for an update on the independent review of teacher workload that was undertaken following negotiations with teaching unions. (AQO 2722/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 5 and 8 together.

Since the independent review of teacher workload panel was appointed in May 2025, it has undertaken a structured programme of work with the aim of submitting a final report by the end of November. That has included a review of existing reports and work streams that was taken forward by the Teachers' Negotiating Committee, as well as direct engagement with a range of stakeholders. The panel has also conducted benchmarking exercises with officials in neighbouring jurisdictions in order to assess comparative approaches to teacher workload management.

In order to gain a comprehensive understanding of the key workload issues and, more importantly, the steps that could be taken to address them, the panel wrote to boards of governors to seek written submissions on the workload position in their schools. In addition, it issued an engagement questionnaire to all teachers and school leaders in Northern Ireland. Over 7,500 responses to that questionnaire were received. The independent panel is finalising its report, and I look forward to receiving it in the next few weeks.

Diana Armstrong (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Thank you, Minister, for the answer to question 5. Can you give me an assurance that you are committed to delivering the panel's recommendations in their entirety?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I cannot, obviously, prejudge the report's recommendations. I am looking forward to receiving the report. It was at my request that the panel was established. It came about as a result of the discussions to resolve industrial relations on teachers' pay last year and the connected issues on workload. In order to find a way through, I recommended that we set up that panel. Given that I commissioned that work and that I have secured the involvement of the key stakeholders, particularly the trade unions, I look forward to receiving the report. I very much want to take forward the report's recommendations, but I cannot prejudge what it will say. Obviously, we will need to review what the recommendations actually say. I certainly want to implement them. That is the direction of travel, but I need to await what is in the recommendations.

Maolíosa McHugh (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Minister, the workload agreement that will be delivered will have the confidence of teachers and of unions. With that in mind, Minister, are you in a position yet to provide an update on teachers' pay talks for the forthcoming year?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I can update the House on that. The financial year for teachers is different to that for, for example, health workers. It runs not from April to April but from September to September. Therefore, the point at which such matters crystallise is not the same as in some of the other public-sector organisations that we have to deal with. The workload aspect was one part of the agreement from the previous set of discussions, and it is an important part of getting that received so that we can look at what measures could be taken forward.

I also want to move to a position in which we can make a pay offer to teachers. I have already had work carried out not only in my Department but in the Executive so that the financial requirement for teaching staff, which we have costed to be in the region of £37 million, will be made available from funding from the Executive. As the monitoring round will follow the Chancellor's statement next Wednesday, I trust that the Finance Minister will bring a paper to the Executive. I expect an allocation to be in that that relates to teachers' pay. That is the case that I have made, and that would then allow me to move forward in making, through the appropriate structures, a formal offer. I want to get a resolution to the matter before the end of January, which is the cut-off point for these discussions. If I can move earlier and get it resolved before Christmas, that is my intention and the basis on which I am operating. However, we need that monitoring round to provide the funding, because there are significant and well-documented financial pressures in the Department and in EA, but that should not come at the detriment of teachers getting an appropriate pay increase.

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

Minister, Stranmillis University College's centre for research in educational underachievement found that teachers in the Irish-medium sector are working far in excess of agreed limits, largely driven by the constant need to create and adapt resources in the absence of sufficient and suitable Irish language materials, so what new actions can you take, and will you take, to ensure manageable workloads?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

We are taking forward a bespoke Irish-medium strategy, and in that will be an element related to workforce. The report that Stranmillis produced will inform the workings of that strategy document. Those issues will be considered. I am not in a position to outline to the Member today what the outworkings of that will be, but the centre has made the case about the needs of the workforce. I am taking that forward by looking at it through the Irish-medium education strategy, which I hope to publish in due course.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

Teachers' workload is, of course, a very important issue, because it has an effect on their private and family life. The issue of workload is also an important one for children. Will the Minister's Department seek to review the workload, particularly homework, for very young children now or in the future? There is a disparity across schools in Northern Ireland, and it has an effect on children and family life.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member highlights the disparity and differences that exist between some schools, and that is right. Different schools take different approaches to the amount of homework that they issue. As part of the TransformED NI work, we are reviewing issues around the curriculum. I have indicated that that work will provide a narrower curriculum that allows much greater depth and understanding to be achieved. One issue that our young people are really struggling with is a broad curriculum that only skims the surface of the subject matter, which means that they then have to catch up and that a lot more work is needed. Reviewing the curriculum and taking the approach recommended by experts in that area will have a knock-on benefit for young people when it comes to pressure and workload.

The work on qualifications is aligned with that. As I have said before in the House, we test our young people in what is, in old money for me, fourth year, fifth year, lower sixth and upper sixth. For four years, significant examinations are required. That puts additional workload on them because of revision, practice, mock preparation and examinations. As part of looking at the qualifications, we need to ask questions about the relevancy of what those qualifications might look like when aligned to a reviewed curriculum and how it impacts on the amount of work that our young people have to deal with. The Member raises an important question. The answer to it is multifaceted, and no single answer will resolve it. Our direction of travel with TransformED will benefit our young people and teachers.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

7. Ms McLaughlin asked the Minister of Education for an update on the publication of the early learning and childcare strategy. (AQO 2721/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for her question. I have issued the draft early learning and childcare strategy to my Executive colleagues for consideration. Once agreed, it will be published for public consultation. The strategy will build on the significant investment of £80 million that has already been allocated by the Executive over the past two years, which is already making a positive difference for thousands of children, families and providers.

One of the most successful initiatives has been the establishment of the Northern Ireland childcare subsidy scheme. The scheme has resulted in real savings for parents, with a 15% reduction in registered childcare costs and potential savings of up to 32% when that is combined with tax-free childcare. Eligible working parents have saved almost £18 million since the launch of the scheme in September 2024, and, when that is combined with the savings from tax-free childcare, parents in Northern Ireland have saved an estimated £38 million.

I have funded the increase of 2,500 more pre-school places to full-time sessions with the provision of a free school meal for eligible children, and further increases are planned for next September. Additional funding has also been provided to support children who face disadvantage and to a range of programmes to support children with additional needs or disabilities.

Those initial actions are an integral part of the strategy and provide the foundation for further progress to support our children, families and the early learning and childcare sector. I encourage stakeholders to respond to the consultation once it is issued. Their comments will be used to inform the final version of the strategy and delivery plan.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Thank you, Minister, for that answer. I am delighted to hear that the draft strategy has gone to the Executive. You promised to meet the deadline of autumn; that is about to pass, and families are still waiting for that support. Given the fact that consultation on the strategy will take at least 12 weeks, it could be April before we see a real start. Will you explain why the Executive are not moving more quickly on that? How quickly will you overcome some potential areas of disagreement in order to get the consultation out and start supporting families?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

A very brief answer, please, Minister.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for the question. The Member and her party leader met me before the schemes were developed. That helped to inform the process that we were following. It was a manifesto commitment by my party, but it is not exclusive to my party. It is being delivered through the Executive, and I put on record my appreciation for the Member's work in this area. Aligned with developing the strategy — and it is now submitted to the Executive. We have an Executive meeting on Thursday, so I hope that it will be on the agenda to allow it to get it out for public consultation and get feedback. I will then turn it around very quickly in order for it to align with the Budget process. Some of the proposals in the strategy require additional finance. Therefore, that needs to be informed by the Budget-making process within the Executive to allow for an allocation to be made to give effect to some of the recommendations that I want to see taken forward.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We now move to topical questions.

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

T1. Ms Hunter asked the Minister of Education, noting that we live in a changing world, where many young people have unfiltered access to smartphones and social media, and that, inside and outside the classroom, they are exposed to never-ending content of unrealistic beauty standards, and that she recently wrote to the Minister asking whether he would consider implementing resilience and self-worth programmes in schools, to which he replied that he had no plans to do so, whether he would reconsider that and move forward with a mandatory curriculum subject, perhaps through the learning for life and work (LLW) module, to improve pupil well-being. (AQT 1791/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member highlights the challenges of mobile phone devices in our schools. That is why, last summer, I produced clear departmental guidance that primary schools should not even have phones coming in, and, in post-primary, phones should not be used between the hours of 9.00 am and 3.00 pm, when pupils have left the school. That is why I have taken forward a pilot scheme in nine schools. I was in St Ronan's College, Lurgan, one of the largest schools in Northern Ireland with 1,600 pupils, and the feedback that the school provided to me was appreciation for the opportunity to have magnetic sealed pouches. It has been the single most transformative act that the school has taken to address issues around behaviour, concentration and the well-being of young people. When we get the evaluation, which is being carried out independently by King's College London, and if my instincts are right and the initial feedback is reflected in that report, it will demonstrate that that is something that we will need to take very seriously because the benefits that will come from minimising mobile phone usage in schools will be transformative, particularly when it comes to the well-being of children and young people.

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

We do not agree on much, Minister, but I am glad that we agree that smartphones do not belong in schools, so I welcome that. Referring to my initial point about instilling confidence in young people, there are school projects in the South that teach 11- to 17-year-olds how to be critical about media influence and build self-resilience and self-worth. In the North, there is nothing mandatory on the curriculum on that issue. There is no class or compulsory module for every school to provide that education. Does that concern you, and, if so, will you consider changing that, reviewing that or looking at it further?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member raises an important point. This morning, I met three dads whose daughters committed suicide — took their own lives. The challenge that they presented to me was what was being done in schools to talk about those serious issues when it comes to mental health and well-being but also addressing suicidal ideation. I was very much struck by the testimony of those three dads, who spoke about their three daughters who tragically lost their lives due to suicide. During the meeting, I was able to relay some of the work that we do carry out in Education and Health. There is a framework in place, and support is available.

The Member rightly highlights the fact that the learning for life and work aspect of the curriculum does not provide the necessary support for young people. That is why Lucy Crehan, in her independent review of our curriculum, found that it was not effective and recommended that it should be broken up and that there should be a clearer way in the curriculum to provide support in a number of areas that LLW had addressed, including the well-being of young people.

I gave an assurance to those three dads this morning about what I very much want to happen. As part of the review of that subject, there is a subject working group, as is the case with all subjects. As part of the curriculum review that is being established, practitioners are being appointed to provide support across every subject, including LLW. Mental health, well-being and suicide should be part of the work of the subgroup that is looking at that aspect of our curriculum, because I believe that we need to do more in that area. I will give close attention to that.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

T2. Mr Honeyford asked the Minister of Education, having noted that, less than a year ago, the Member was in Fort Hill Integrated College in their constituency, senior Education Authority (EA) officials have since been out and the Minister has visited the school, whether, following the recent inspection from the Education and Training Inspectorate (ETI) that confirmed what parents, staff and pupils all know, namely that there is a fantastic school community but the buildings are not fit for purpose, and identified serious health and safety risks for pupils, the Minister can set out clearly what immediate actions his Department, working with EA, is taking to ensure that pupil and staff safety has not been compromised. (AQT 1792/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The Member is right. I know the school well, and I have visited the school. I know that it was subject to an inspection and that a number of action points, not just related to the physical capacity and build, need to be taken forward as a result of that inspection. We will continue to monitor that.

The Member rightly raises the poor condition of the college. It requires work, and, when I visited the school, I gave an assurance that the Education Authority would look at the various measures that need to be taken to address a number of the deficits associated with it. I will follow up with the Member on where that work currently is and what is needed. Fort Hill college is one of countless schools that are facing chronic maintenance backlogs, as I relayed earlier. Hundreds of millions of pounds is needed to address schools that successive reports have said are crumbling, and that has a negative impact on the delivery of the curriculum in those school settings. Fort Hill, like other schools, needs support. However, I can provide that support only when the appropriate financial resources are provided. I will continue to make the case for that funding, and I would appreciate colleagues supporting me in securing that resource.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Minister. The costs are high, and the Public Accounts Committee recently did a report on that. The neglect over the years has been phenomenal. The Minister will be well aware that Fort Hill was promised a new school building for more than a decade, and, at his direction, that Fresh Start funding was removed as soon as the Assembly returned. Minister, given the severe budgetary situation that you have just talked about, can your Department now confirm whether any of the current pupils at that school will see the new building during their time there?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I cannot. Just to correct the Member: I did not take away Fresh Start funding from schools. When it came to Fresh Start, the United Kingdom Government identified £500 million, and they carried out a process for integrated schools to be identified for new builds. That funding was then allocated to the Strule Shared Education Campus project, delivering for 4,000 pupils. What was my response? When schools such as Fort Hill and others were left high and dry by the UK Government, I brought them into my Department's conventional capital programme, and it is my Department that continues to take forward that work. Therefore, far from what the Member alleges, which is that I took money away, I actually stepped in to protect schools such as Fort Hill. That was the action that I carried out, and I will continue to make the case. However, when the Alliance Party and others are around the Executive table, will you prioritise prisons and prisoners and provide things such as a canteen in Magilligan, or will you prioritise pupils? I say this to the Alliance Party: give the priority to our pupils. I look forward to your ministerial colleagues in the Executive supporting me when it comes to our schools.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

T3. Mr Butler asked the Minister of Education whether the Department has carried out an audit to measure the extent of the hiring of classroom assistants on temporary engagement forms rather than permanent contracts, as there are concerns, of which the Minister will be aware, that the practice carries significant risk in that many classroom assistants on temporary arrangements have not completed the necessary AccessNI checks. (AQT 1793/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for raising this issue, because it gives me an opportunity to put on record the current position. Misinformation has been provided and reported on. Just to make it clear, the figures that were recently issued to Unite the union in response to its freedom of information request related to temporary school support staff across the whole education system. In addition to classroom assistants, they included figures for a range of other staff groups: for example, admin staff, cleaners, catering staff, instrumental tutors and EA headquarters staff. Unite the union wrongly claimed that the total relates solely to special school support staff. At best, that represents a fundamental misunderstanding of the information. The union then compared the overall, system-wide figure to an earlier figure from January, which related only to special schools, and falsely claimed that there had been a 200% increase. That was another basic inaccuracy. Whatever the reason for that misrepresentation, it risks spreading unfounded fear among parents.

To be clear, the figures cited by the union in January related to 108 classroom assistants in special schools who were awaiting clearance. Today, that figure stands at 14. Unite has therefore presented an 81% reduction as a 200% increase. The average turnaround time for the issuing of AccessNI certificates is five working days from presentation of all the relevant paperwork. The number of staff who are employed through a temporary engagement form will constantly change. As of today, the total number of such staff across the education system is 173. That reflects the reality that any large workforce will require some temporary staff.

I thank the Member for allowing me to correct the record on that issue.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for his answer and for bringing accuracy to the issue. The last thing that we want to do is cause undue alarm. However, the fact that the temporary engagement form regime still exists leaves some risk. Is the Minister content that that is a manageable risk, or will he take steps to change the process so that no one is working in schools without the requisite AccessNI clearance?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The issues around AccessNI were well documented a number of months ago. At that point, I took action. I engaged with the Education Authority in respect of the alarming figures. EA then engaged very robustly with schools, because it is schools, as the employer, that bring in temporary staff. Schools have a requirement to ensure that the appropriate AccessNI arrangements are in place. EA also made it clear that no member of staff who had not been AccessNI cleared would be paid, in order to ensure that priority was given to the issue. That addressed a significant backlog of hundreds of staff who had not been AccessNI cleared — some for an unacceptably long period. In the cases of the very small number of people who are engaged in emergency cover and whose application to AccessNI has not been processed, there must be direct supervision by appropriate staff who have been Access NI cleared. That should occur only in cases of extremity. Significant work has been done to address that issue with the AccessNI clearing system.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

T4. Mr McGuigan asked the Minister of Education whether there is a defined policy on the removal of concessionary passes in scenarios where the bus has the capacity, given that his office has worked on behalf of a number of parents of schoolchildren from St Patrick's Primary School in Rasharkin who recently lost their concessionary travel passes, despite their having been able to avail themselves of such passes in previous years. (AQT 1794/22-27)

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I am not aware of that particular case, but I am happy to come back to the Member in more detail on the question.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I appreciate that. I will forward the information to the Minister. In a similar vein, the EA has resisted parents' request for the bus, on its same route home, to stop at childminders' premises. The EA insists on the bus stopping at parental homes, despite the fact that parents are working and homes are empty. What is the defined policy in that scenario?

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I will look into that for the Member. At times, bus routes have fixed locations at which buses have to stop. The ability to accommodate a different drop-off point may be impacted on by other issues: for example, the need to ensure that it is safe. Again, I do not know, but, if the Member wants to write to me with the details, I will be happy to come back to him.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

That brings to a conclusion questions to the Minister of Education.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. According to Standing Order 19(1)(a), a Member may ask written questions of any Minister:

"on matters relating to the Minister’s official responsibilities".

It is clear that some Ministers are in breach of that rule, as they answer questions on certain issues that fall within their official purview by saying that are on "operational matters" or should be redirected to statutory bodies within their Department in order to:

"make best use of limited public resources."

I ask the Minister for a ruling —.

Some Members

The Speaker.

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

Sorry, I ask the Speaker for a ruling that will stop Ministers trying to deflect and exonerate themselves from their ministerial responsibility to answer questions from Members, who seek only to represent their constituents.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

There already is a ruling. Ministers are expected to answer questions. I say that as a former Health Minister who, at one stage, had, I think, six or seven times more questions to answer than any other Minister and got through them. I have no truck with Ministers who say that they are busy and all of that. If you take on the job, you take on the responsibility and answer the questions. It is clear that Ministers are accountable to the House, and the House is accountable to the people of Northern Ireland. Get on with the job and answer the questions.

In a small number of cases, there are questions that refer to operational matters, particularly for the Justice Minister, which means that they have to go through the Policing Board and so forth. Let me be clear, however, that that happens only in a small number of cases. Ministers should not farm questions out to arm's-length bodies to answer on their behalf.

Members should take their ease while we change the Table.

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

Executive Committee Business

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

I welcome the opportunity to speak in support of the Farm Sustainability Payment Scheme Regulations. The proposals represent a significant and necessary step towards a more resilient, productive and environmentally sustainable agriculture sector that can do well economically while meeting our environmental obligations and some of the other challenges that can no longer be ignored.

What sets the regulations apart is the clear and constructive link between public investment and meaningful environmental action, which is important. The conditionality built into the scheme should be viewed not as a burden but as an opportunity. It ensures that the substantial public funding that goes into agriculture will help farmers to build long-term resilience financially and environmentally.

By supporting improvements to soil health, the scheme encourages the practices that can build genuine sustainability. Healthy soils mean improved grass growth and reduced reliance on costly inputs. Those are practical, proven steps that strengthen farm businesses while enhancing the natural capital on which agriculture ultimately depends.

The same is true of the incentives on livestock genetics. I have spoken to a number of people involved in that sector. Better genetics mean more productive and healthier animals, improved animal welfare and reduced emissions per unit of output. It is about future-proofing our livestock sector to ensure that Northern Ireland remains competitive while lowering its environmental footprint.

When it comes to reducing emissions, agriculture must play its part along with the rest of us. The regulations support farmers to make those changes in a planned and supported way that works with the sector rather than against it.

It is important to recognise that the regulations are not a sudden departure, nor are they an invention of the current Minister. They implement the policy intent set out by a previous AERA Minister, a DUP Minister, who, if I recall correctly, consulted on future agriculture policy proposals in 2022. What we see today is the continuation of a direction of travel that has already been endorsed across multiple Administrations and political leaderships. It is not a particularly partisan project, nor should it be. It is a long-term reform programme that recognises the need to link public funding to resilience, sustainability and productivity.

It is important to highlight a particularly positive element of the regulations, which is the removal of the old in-field eligibility requirements. For years, those rules had the unintended effect of discouraging farmers from retaining or enhancing features such as hedgerows, scrub and other semi-natural habitats, despite their being some of the most valuable areas on farms for encouraging and supporting biodiversity, carbon storage and, indeed, water management. Their removal is a welcome correction, as it ensures that farmers are no longer penalised for protecting the very features that we now recognise as essential to a healthy landscape.

Crucially, none of this is being rushed, nor would any of us wish it to be. The lead-in times for participation are reasonable and deliberately paced to give businesses time to prepare and adapt. Many farmers are already in the soil nutrient health scheme, which has already mapped the soil on a large proportion of many of our farms. Farmers' willingness to engage in that initiative shows that the sector understands the need for change and adaptability and is prepared to work with government to deliver it. Those steps will make a real difference to addressing some of the most serious environmental challenges, including the one at my back door: Lough Neagh. Better nutrient management, improved soil testing and more efficient use of slurry and fertiliser are exactly the kinds of measures that can reduce nutrient run-off while keeping farms productive and profitable. They demonstrate that environmental restoration and agriculture viability can and must go hand in hand. Yes, some people say that the stick is needed — there are circumstances in which that is the case — but let us not forget that the most successful instances are when people cooperate and are incentivised to do so.

Throughout, farmers will continue to have an economic safety net. The scheme maintains the principle that public investment in agriculture is essential for food production, for rural communities and for the other services that farmers uniquely deliver. We must acknowledge the challenge ahead, however. If we want agriculture to deliver improved soil health, lower emissions, better water quality, restored habitats and a resilient food system, it must be funded at a sufficient scale to meet those ambitions. The regulations set the right direction, but they must be backed up by the right resources to support transition and change on farms. That is why having a multi-year agriculture budget is so crucial. Farmers cannot plan on one-year cycles. Environmental improvements cannot be delivered on one-year cycles. Long-term investment in genetics, technology, slurry storage and nutrient management requires long-term certainty for financial planning and business planning. A multi-year budget would give the sector the stability and confidence that it needs to plan, invest and innovate.

The regulations respond to the pressures that farmers face and help address the environmental crisis that is before us. They help set agriculture in Northern Ireland on a path towards a more productive, sustainable and resilient future. The SDLP is pleased to support them.

Áine Murphy (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The statutory rule (SR) will give legal effect to the new farm sustainability payment (FSP), which will replace the farm sustainability transition payment (FSTP) on 1 January 2026. The scheme is expected to attract around 22,000 applications each year and marks an important shift in how we support active farm businesses. The regulations introduce progressive capping of payments above £60,000, which will be phased in over two years. They also simplify land eligibility rules, allowing certain land features and areas of woodland to qualify, as set out in legislation. The FSP is restricted to active farmers who have management control of the land and carry out agricultural activity on at least 3 hectares. The rules will also apply to environmental farming scheme (EFS) higher-level agreements that are already in place. The regulations also reset the two-year entitlement confiscation rule, meaning that no entitlements will be lost for non-activation in 2026. That reflects the fact that the FSTP and the FSP are being treated as separate schemes.

The order of penalties under the scheme is clearly defined in legislation. Participation in the soil nutrient health scheme and the bovine genetics programme will be mandatory for applicants. In Committee, I sought clarity on farmers' concerns around conditionality, particularly regarding genotyping becoming mandatory in the future. Last week, the Department confirmed in writing that the bovine genetics genotyping scheme will remain voluntary, although participation in the education programme will be compulsory. The regulations also clarify that businesses that do not meet the historical years test will not be eligible for the FSP in 2026. They may qualify in later years but only by acquiring FSP entitlements on the market and meeting all other requirements. A restriction is also placed on transferring entitlements from ineligible businesses to new businesses established after the regulations are made in order to prevent circumvention.

I restate Sinn Féin's concerns regarding entrants and those who began farming after 2021. Unlike in the South of Ireland, where young farmers can benefit from the national reserve and enhanced entitlements, new entrants here have no such support.

In conclusion, I will be crystal clear: the entire policy redesign was triggered by Brexit. Farmers now have to navigate more complex and uncertain landscapes due to Brexit. The SR establishes the legal footing for the next phase of support, but it also highlights the gaps and vulnerabilities created by the loss of EU funding streams for our farming community.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

The Democratic Unionist Party has concerns about the proposals for progressive capping and conditionalities in respect of the farm sustainability payment. We voted against laying the rule in Committee for that reason. I am conscious of the comments of Members who have spoken previously. The context today is somewhat different from when those measures were consulted on over four years ago, not least because climate targets have primacy, a fact that has created a variety of additional burdens for farm businesses.

There is very much a sense that agriculture is being subjected to death by a thousand cuts. The vote of no confidence in the Department by the Ulster Farmers' Union (UFU) reinforces that point. That is not to say that we do not support the objective of encouraging more sustainable environmental practices on farms or that we oppose ensuring that payments to larger businesses represent value for money. We absolutely want to encourage entry into excellent schemes, such as the bovine genetics programme, which, ironically — the Alliance Party may not wish to acknowledge this — was an action of the much-maligned Going for Growth strategy. However, does handing down financial penalties on an indefinite basis really incentivise that or encourage those taking part to do so with the right mindset?

The rather singular focus of the regulations on conditionalities, capping and penalties cannot be viewed in isolation from an assessment of barriers to profitability and productivity in agriculture. In many cases, barriers such as the impact of ammonia controls on planning, the scourge of TB and slow progress on a just transition fund for agriculture are not being satisfactorily addressed by the Minister. We need all the challenges and opportunities facing primary production to be dealt with in the round. Will progressive capping stifle investment, growth and entrepreneurship? Will some larger businesses limit their sustainability ambitions as a result? Could it encourage smaller farm units? Are the running costs for larger businesses any less demanding or proportionate than those for smaller businesses? Will the proposed timescale for registration and training for the various schemes give businesses enough time, given everything else that they have to grapple with each day? Those are all legitimate questions. While the issue of conditionality will, of course, be downplayed by the Minister and others in the Chamber, we are setting a precedent that I am not comfortable with and will not support.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I rise as a member of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to express my support and that of the Alliance Party for the farm sustainability payment scheme regulations.

As stated today and on previous occasions, the regulations are a result of our need to transition away from EU agricultural policy.

Before I continue, I express my thanks to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs and his departmental officials for their work in navigating the complexities of transitioning between schemes and for their efforts in keeping Committee members updated. During briefings that my fellow Committee members and I received on the regulations, it was emphasised that, at the core of the regulations, is a strong commitment to create a more sustainable future for agriculture in Northern Ireland. While the payments might seem to some to be simple financial support, they represent crucial investment in the agriculture sector's future. By encouraging farmers to adopt sustainable practices through initiatives such as Farming with Nature, the soil nutrient health scheme and the beef carbon reduction scheme, the industry can move towards becoming more resilient and environmentally responsible. Schemes such as those are essential for reaching our climate change targets. They are also absolutely essential for securing better environmental outcomes. Collaborating with the farming community to promote practices that restore ecosystems, enhance soil health and lower greenhouse gas emissions helps us to protect Northern Ireland's natural beauty and preserve our valuable environment.

I recognise that some Members have voiced legitimate concerns about aspects of the regulations. However, I urge them to see the bigger picture, which is the potential benefits that those measures hold for our natural environment, local economy and food security. Now more than ever, we must prioritise policies that balance those three pillars, ensuring that each supports and strengthens the other.

The Alliance Party remains steadfast in advocating policies that align our environmental ambitions with economic viability and the ongoing security of our food supply. We believe that progress in one area must not come at the expense of the others. Therefore, I, alongside my colleagues in Alliance, am pleased to offer our full support to the regulations. We hope that Members will join us in allowing Northern Ireland's farming community to move forward with confidence towards a more sustainable and prosperous future.

If I may, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker, I would like to leave Members with this thought: there has been mention today, which I have heard before, of carrots and sticks. I hear it at the Committee on a regular basis. If we do not support this Minister in bringing forward the necessary regulations to the legislation for that sustainable future, there will be no carrots for the sticks, because we will have destroyed the ground that they grow in.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you, John. I call the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to conclude and wind up the debate on the motion.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I thank everyone for the debate on the regulations. As I said at the outset, these regulations are essential to ensuring that I can deliver for our farming community by opening the farm sustainability payment as planned on 2 March 2026. They deliver on policy proposals that were consulted on and decisions that were announced in 2022. Some may look back at Hansard to see those announcements and reacquaint themselves with them.

Failure to approve the regulations does not mean that I can revert to the FSTP scheme that was delivered in 2025. Considerable work will be necessary, which will inevitably result in a delay in opening the scheme in 2026, with unavoidable delays in payments to farm businesses in 2026. It will also impact on officials' ability to take forward work on future support for the sheep sector and on the continued development and delivery of other key sustainable agricultural programme schemes, such as Farming with Nature.

In conclusion, I highlight a point that was raised in the debate: the work that my Department continues to do on agriculture often relates to Brexit. The requirement to have this debate and to put the regulations in place is a direct outworking of Brexit. I will continue to focus on solutions and deliver for the farming community of Northern Ireland. I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put.

The Assembly divided:

Ayes 54; Noes 21

AYES

Dr Aiken, Mr Allen, Dr Archibald, Ms D Armstrong, Ms K Armstrong, Mr Baker, Mr Beattie, Mr Blair, Mr Boylan, Ms Bradshaw, Miss Brogan, Mr Burrows, Mr Butler, Mr Chambers, Mr Delargy, Mr Dickson, Mrs Dillon, Miss Dolan, Mr Donnelly, Mr Durkan, Ms Egan, Ms Ennis, Ms Finnegan, Ms Flynn, Mr Gildernew, Mrs Guy, Miss Hargey, Mr Honeyford, Ms Hunter, Mr Kearney, Mr Kelly, Ms Kimmins, Mr McAleer, Miss McAllister, Mr McGlone, Mr McGuigan, Mr McHugh, Ms McLaughlin, Mr McMurray, Mr McNulty, Mrs Mason, Mr Mathison, Mr Muir, Ms Mulholland, Ms Murphy, Mr Nesbitt, Ms Nicholl, Mr O'Dowd, Mrs O'Neill, Mr O'Toole, Ms Reilly, Ms Sheerin, Mr Stewart, Mr Tennyson

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Donnelly, Mr McMurray

NOES

Mr Bradley, Mr Brett, Mr T Buchanan, Mr Buckley, Ms Bunting, Mr Clarke, Mrs Dodds, Mrs Erskine, Ms Forsythe, Mr Frew, Mr Gaston, Mr Givan, Mr Harvey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kingston, Mrs Little-Pengelly, Mr Lyons, Miss McIlveen, Mr Martin, Mr Middleton, Mr Robinson

Tellers for the Noes: Mr Bradley, Mr T Buchanan

Ms Ennis acted as a proxy for Miss Brogan.

Mr Clarke acted as a proxy for Mrs Erskine.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved:

That the draft Farm Sustainability Payment Scheme (Eligibility etc) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2025 be approved.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I ask Members who are leaving the Chamber to do so in an orderly fashion.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I beg to move

That this Assembly agrees, in line with section 87 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, to the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of the provisions of the Pension Schemes Bill, relating to terminal illness, alienation or forfeiture of occupational pension, validity of certain alterations to salary-related, contracted-out pension schemes, pensions dashboard and contractual override, which was introduced in the House of Commons on 5 June 2025.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Pension Schemes Bill intends to strengthen pension investment by supporting over 15 million people who save in private-sector pension schemes to get better outcomes from their pension assets and to support the UK Government's mission to deliver growth. The Bill seeks to create a private pensions market that encourages consolidation and focuses on value and outcomes for members, enabling people to have security in retirement and pension schemes to invest in a wider range of assets, driving growth.

I will give a brief overview of each clause that extends to Northern Ireland. Clause 48 relates to contractual override and makes provision for pension scheme providers to transfer a member's contract to another provider or vary contractual terms without the need for individual consent where that is in the member's best interests.

Clauses 104 to 107 relate to the contracting-out regime that applied between 1997 and its abolition in 2016. The clauses seek to restore certainty about scheme liabilities and funding by allowing schemes to retrospectively obtain actuarial confirmation that benefit changes made during that period meet the reference scheme test even if written confirmation was not obtained at the time.

Clause 108 seeks to restore the Pensions Ombudsman's original 1993 role by reaffirming its status as a competent court. That change will remove the need for schemes to seek court enforcement, reducing costs and delays for courts, schemes and members and ensuring an efficient, accessible way of resolving pension disputes.

Clause 109 seeks to extend the terminal illness definition from six months to 12 months for individuals who are entitled to compensation payments from the Pension Protection Fund (PPF) and the financial assistance scheme (FAS), bringing it into line with similar provisions in social security and tax legislation. The Assembly previously approved that measure through a legislative consent motion (LCM) for its inclusion in a Westminster private Member's Bill; however, that Bill fell at the dissolution of Parliament for the 2024 general election.

Clause 111 allows the Money and Pensions Service (MaPS) to include on its dashboard information relating to the Pension Protection Fund and the financial assistance scheme, including individual-level data. At present, the Pension Protection Fund and financial assistance scheme are excluded from dashboards because they are classified as compensation schemes rather than traditional pension schemes. However, many individuals rely on those payments as part of their retirement income, and their inclusion would significantly enhance the effectiveness and completeness of the service for members of those schemes.

The provisions enacted by the clauses listed in the legislative consent motion are intended to become operational shortly after the Bill receives Royal Assent. That means that it will not be possible for an Executive Bill to be passed to meet the same operational date as the Westminster Bill for those measures unless the accelerated passage procedure is used. Agreement that clauses 48, 104 to 109 and 111 should extend here will allow those important provisions to be enacted across all jurisdictions at the same time.

Whilst I seek to avoid using the legislative consent motion process where possible, it seemed sensible to secure the pension scheme benefits afforded by those provisions for Northern Ireland members by agreeing to an LCM in respect of the clauses listed. The intention is to introduce in the Assembly a parity Bill for all remaining clauses in the Westminster Bill.

I am aware of the importance of the Assembly's role in considering legislation and, in particular, of the value of the Committee's scrutiny role. I am grateful to the Communities Committee for the time that it has taken to consider the measures in such a short timescale. Its report is thorough, and I appreciate its noting that, while it:

"would prefer to see legislation originating in the Assembly",

it is content with the LCM and recognises, based on the evidence received by the Committee, that the changes are beneficial to people in Northern Ireland. I look forward to a robust and thrilling debate on those issues.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his statement. As Chair of the Committee for Communities, I will contribute to the debate on the legislative consent motion for the Pension Schemes Bill.

The Committee for Communities undertook its scrutiny of the LCM over the full 15 days that were afforded to the Committee under Standing Order 42A(7). We initially received a detailed briefing from departmental officials and then immediately sought written evidence from key stakeholders, including the Association of British Insurers and the Irish Congress of Trade Unions (ICTU). Following that scrutiny, the Committee published a comprehensive report. That has been laid in the Business Office and the Assembly Library, so all Members have the opportunity to review it. Having completed that work, the Committee for Communities is content to support the motion.

The Committee is strongly of the opinion that, as the Minister stated, legislation on devolved matters should originate in the Assembly. However, pensions policy, while devolved, effectively operates as a single system across Britain and the North, as Members will be aware.

The Department also advised us that the Westminster Bill is expected to be operative by spring 2026 and that it would not be practically possible for a separate Assembly parity Bill to complete its passage in time to meet that date. Therefore, in this case, the Committee accepts the Department's rationale for using an LCM. To do otherwise could create a situation in which people here in the North are treated less favourably than those in Britain, delaying their access to entirely beneficial changes.

We also note that the LCM covers only five specific measures that are deemed to be time critical. A separate Executive Bill will be progressed for the remaining provisions in the Westminster Bill. The Committee welcomed assurances from officials that proceeding with the LCM will mean operational alignment with the British implementation timeline, thereby avoiding any gaps in provision here.

I will not go into detail and summarise the provisions. The Minister has very helpfully set those out, so I will not reiterate them. I will move instead to outline the Committee's scrutiny and key considerations.

During the evidence sessions, the Committee received vital clarification on two important points. First, residents in the South of Ireland who hold UK-based pensions will receive all the benefits of the changes in the legislation. Secondly, the Department does not believe that there is any diminution of members' rights as a result of those changes. However, our stakeholders raised several important points of concern. The Committee shares those points of concern and has detailed them in its report.

The contractual override provision rightly received the most scrutiny. The Irish Congress of Trade Unions expressed valid concerns about enabling providers to vary contracts without individual consent and urged that those powers be tightly constrained with robust safeguards and independent oversight. Furthermore, the Association of British Insurers stressed to us that the sequencing of the reforms is crucial. It argued that the contractual override power must be implemented before the new value-for-money framework and before any UK ministerial review of market fragmentation in order to enable providers to consolidate low-value schemes first. The Committee agrees that that sequencing appears logical and efficient.

Regarding the so-called Virgin Media provision, the Committee shares ICTU's view that robust safeguards must be in place to ensure that retrospective validation does not disadvantage any member or diminish their accrued benefits.

Finally, the Committee noted stakeholder calls for adequate resourcing of the Pensions Ombudsman so that it is able to efficiently handle any caseload and for a comprehensive communication strategy to be developed and implemented in relation to the pensions dashboard.

The Committee queried the Department's description of the changes as being "largely beneficial" rather than entirely so. Officials clarified that the wording reflects that some measures are technical fixes that are not necessarily advantageous, but are not disadvantageous, to individuals. Having read the evidence, the Committee accepts that position.

Overall, the Committee for Communities is content with the legislative consent motion. We recognise that the changes, which are based on the evidence that was received, are beneficial to people in the North and accept that the motion is an appropriate route towards ensuring parity and timely access to pension benefits. In closing, I thank the departmental officials for assisting and advising the Committee on the LCM.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

We support the legislative consent motion on the Pension Schemes Bill, in particular the provisions that relate to terminal illness. We raised that matter with the Minister previously, and I appreciate that the LCM has come forward now. We also welcome the provisions on pension protection and the wider reforms that will extend important protections to people in the North.

Marie Curie's report 'Dying in Poverty 2024' laid bare the reality that, every year, thousands of people across the North spend their final months in poverty. One in four terminally ill people of working age dies below the poverty line. Those are not abstract statistics but, rather, mothers, fathers, partners and friends. They are human beings, many of whom have worked all their life and paid into the system. They have raised a family and contributed to society, yet they are told that they must wait until pensionable age to access the very support that they themselves funded. That is indefensible.

Some months ago, I attended a meeting of the all-party group (APG) on cancer. I thank Marie Curie for its work and for using the opportunity at the APG meeting to raise the issue of early access to their pension for people who have been diagnosed with a terminal illness. It was on the back of Marie Curie's presentation that I tabled a motion that called for legislation to ensure that people with a terminal illness can get early access to their pension. There was unanimous support from all parties for the motion, which called on the British Government to allow those with a terminal diagnosis early access to the state pension and further called on the Minister for Communities to engage with the Department for Work and Pensions to make the necessary legislative and administrative changes a reality.

The message from the Assembly then was unambiguous. It was that compassion must shape policy. Financial security in the final months of life is a matter of dignity, fairness and humanity. The LCM aligns with that principle and reflects progress. The Pension Schemes Bill will ensure that those who belong to the Pension Protection Fund and are in the financial assistance scheme who are diagnosed with a terminal illness and given one year to live can access an early payout. The increase from six months is a step forward that is long overdue. Again, I acknowledge the work of Marie Curie to lobby and campaign on the issue in the Assembly and in the other legislatures.

For too long, people have received the worst possible news while also facing the cruel and unnecessary burden of navigating complex systems, financial insecurity and delays that robs them of peace of mind in their final months. The legislation will begin to correct that injustice. It is a step in the right direction and reflects what Sinn Féin has consistently argued for, which is that it is unfair and inhumane to expect people who are living with a terminal illness to wait for the support that they may never live to receive.

Let me be equally clear, however, that our work here is not finished. We want the protections to be extended further. We want all those who are facing incurable illnesses to have the ability to access their pension early so that they and their families can, in the time remaining to them, live their life with dignity and without fear of hardship or being forced into painful financial choices during a period that is already filled with enough heartbreak.

The LCM ensures that the positive changes that will be made at Westminster will apply here and that people in the North are not left behind. It reinforces the direction that the Assembly set earlier this year, which is that compassion must be embedded in how we legislate, particularly for those who need it most. I therefore support the motion and welcome the fact that this is the second time today that we have debated legislation that is compassionate. I hope that the motion will be supported. I am sure that it will. It is something to be able to say that, twice in one day, we were able to debate compassionate legislation that everybody in the House supported.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

No other Members have indicated that they wish to speak. I therefore call the Minister for Communities to conclude and make a winding-up speech on the motion.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Members who contributed to the debate. I thank the Chair of the Committee for Communities and Committee members for their support for the LCM. The Chair raised a number of issues but specifically that of contractual override. I understand the concerns that have been expressed, but we want to make sure that people who are in pension schemes have the best return. We want to make sure that poor value and poor outcomes are not being delivered. There is sometimes a lack of engagement from pension scheme members, and there is often little that providers can do to address that. The measure is intended to enable pension providers to transfer a saver's pension to another arrangement or provider without their consent but when it is in their best interests. I understand the concern about who decides whether something is in their best interests, but, as the regulator responsible, the Financial Conduct Authority will have supervisory oversight of contractual overrides and will be notified about proposed transfers. It will also oversee a range of safeguards and procedures that must be followed before a variation or transfer can occur. I assure the Committee Chair that strong consumer safeguards and consumer protections will be in place in the new regime. Contractual overrides will be permitted only when they are in savers' best interests. I thank him for his comments and for the Committee's support.

I am also grateful to Linda Dillon for her comments. We have a common position on that issue. It has been debated in the House, and she will be aware of the correspondence that I have had with the UK Government on it. It is likely that that provision will impact on only a small number of people. Around 10 to 15 members across the UK will benefit from it as a result of being members of the PPF or the FAS, but, if just one person benefits, it is worth our doing it. I am pleased to have her support, and I expect the support of the whole Chamber today.

I thank officials for the work that they have done on the LCM to make sure that we are all kept right, and I echo the comments of the Member who spoke previously. Although the changes are small, this is a good day and is indicative of the work that we can do to improve people's lives.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That this Assembly agrees, in line with section 87 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, to the principle of the extension to Northern Ireland of the provisions of the Pension Schemes Bill, relating to terminal illness, alienation or forfeiture of occupational pension, validity of certain alterations to salary-related, contracted-out pension schemes, pensions dashboard and contractual override, which was introduced in the House of Commons on 5 June 2025.

Ministerial Statement

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The Speaker has received notice from the Minister for Communities that he wishes to make a statement. As usual, I remind Members that they must be concise in asking their question. This is not an opportunity for debate or for long introductions.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

During the passage of the Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2021, the House approved an amendment placing a statutory duty on my Department to appoint an independent person to undertake a review of the liquor licensing system, including the surrender principle. In fulfilment of that duty, my Department appointed a consortium, led by the University of Stirling, to undertake the review. The resulting report, published on 21 February 2025, contained 26 wide-ranging recommendations covering the operation and administration of the regime; its impact on public health and the economy; and its responsiveness to consumer and community needs. The recommendations are publicly available, and I encourage Members to read them.

The Act also required my Department to produce and publish a plan setting out how it proposes to respond to the report. My officials have considered each of the 26 recommendations faithfully and in detail, and a comprehensive response to each can be found in the document published this morning. In some circumstances, my Department's response is to definitively accept or not accept the author's recommendation. Other recommendations require a more nuanced approach. That includes where the Department partially accepts the recommendation or where the underlying objective is already satisfied in the current regime.

In providing this update to fellow Members, let me reaffirm a core and guiding principle: alcohol is not an ordinary commodity. Its sale is, rightly, subject to the regulation of a licensing regime that dictates who can sell alcohol, where, when and in what circumstances. The purpose of the controls is to ensure that the right balance is struck between facilitating the responsible sale and consumption of alcohol and protecting public health, public safety and public order. In that way, the licensing regime also plays a role in assisting our hospitality sector in its sustainability and attractiveness to customers. Our licensed premises are vital for the Northern Ireland economy. They support tourism, provide employment and serve as important social spaces in our communities. That is why I have decided not to accept the authors' recommendation for targeted reform of the surrender principle.

The Licensing and Registration of Clubs (Amendment) Act (Northern Ireland) 2021 delivered the most significant reform of our licensing system in over 25 years. It modernised a regime that had remained largely unchanged since 1996 by introducing extended opening hours, removing outdated restrictions and creating new licence categories to reflect changing consumer habits and support local producers. Those reforms were evidence-based, phased and carefully calibrated to support both the public interest and sector sustainability. Any further reform must be held to the same standard. The recommendation to reform the surrender principle and the authors' other recommendations were not impact assessed or costed, and I am not persuaded that the authors have made a compelling case for such a fundamental change, which could have significant and unintended consequences for the economic viability of our hospitality sector at a time when many are operating below viability thresholds. I understand that recent figures from Hospitality Ulster highlight the fact that 27% of operators are now operating at a loss and that another 20% are just breaking even.

That is not a rejection of progress. The report also provided my Department with the opportunity to consider how the regime can be further improved and modernised. I have directed my officials to explore how the current licensing regime has contributed to the growth in off-sales and the relative decline in pub licences, as well as to explore the policy options that are available to us to effectively address any corresponding growth in alcohol-related harms. The role that a licensing regime can play in supporting market diversity and innovation will also inform my Department's response to recommendations on local producers' licences, which were introduced in 2022. Those recommendations will be taken forward following the completion of a statutory review and will be accompanied by direct and meaningful engagement between my Department and representatives from the sector.

The action that my Department takes in response to all those recommendations reflects my priority, which is to ensure that the licensing regime is as effective as possible in addressing alcohol-related harm. That includes clear commitments to work with our delivery partners, such as those in the Department of Health, to explore how best to reflect public health concerns in the administration of the licensing regime, including via the application of the adequacy principle, which ensures that a licence will not be granted if an adequate number of licensed premises are already in the vicinity.

I will also take action in a number of other areas. For example, community input into licensing decisions will be strengthened by reviewing the objections process. Transparency and accessibility will be enhanced. I am not taking forward the recommendation to establish a new licensing authority; however, I have asked my officials to work with their delivery partners to make the system easier for applicants and stakeholders to navigate. A number of the authors' recommendations fall within the responsibility of the Department of Justice and its agencies. I will write to my Executive colleague the Minister of Justice to bring those recommendations to her attention and seek her views.

The review provided a valuable opportunity to reflect on how our licensing regime can evolve, but reform must be proportionate, evidence-led and aligned with the needs of our communities and economy. I am committed to working with delivery partners, stakeholders and industry representatives to ensure that any changes are consulted on, fully impact assessed and subject to meaningful engagement. In the meantime, we will focus on what can be done now in the existing regime to improve awareness, accessibility and responsiveness. That includes ensuring that public health concerns are not just acknowledged but actively addressed. I commend the statement to the House.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you, Minister. I call Colm Gildernew.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Go raibh maith agat —.

[Translation: Thank you —.]

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

I —.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Sorry, Matthew nearly had a stroke there. You are right, Matthew. I call Matthew O'Toole.

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

Thank you, Principal Deputy Speaker. It was a bit like last orders there as I shouted to get my spake in first.

Minister, I am disappointed in that response, to say the least. I grew up, as it were, in pubs, having had pubs in my family and having worked in them. I care about protecting small and rural pubs.

This, I am afraid, does nothing to protect them. It simply furthers the situation whereby they close. As for public health, when rural pubs close, off-sales open, where people buy 10 cans that they drink at home rather than two pints in the local pub.

To look on the bright side, since you said that you will bring forward other proposals for reform or will examine reform, when will we have those proposals? I think that lots of people looking at our system, with all the vexatious legislation and all the public health harms and the fact that rural pubs are shutting — we have the lowest number of pubs in the UK or Ireland — will be asking, "When will we have your proposals for reform?". Lots of people will be disappointed in the response today.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

To answer the last question, I will bring those proposals forward as soon as possible. I do not have a definitive timescale for the Member, but I will bring forward proposals that are costed and have had their impact assessed. Frankly, the Member is responsible for me standing here today by bringing the amendment and report through.

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

You voted for it.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes, but it was the Member's initiative that brought that forward. Frankly, I am a little surprised that he has not realised or mentioned the other consequences that it will have. He wants me to move in one direction, but he fails to recognise or understand that there are consequences of every action that we take in that area. Therefore, moving away on the surrender principle or some of those other issues that he might want us to move on will have direct and real consequences for other people. Unfortunately, that was not noted in the report that was produced, and it is disappointing that those issues were not taken into consideration.

Another point to raise with the Member is that it is not the licensing regime in itself or the licensing regime alone that is contributing to some of the issues that we see in society. Over recent months, in GB alone, which has a different licensing regime, we saw more than 200 pubs close, so it is wrong to say that licensing is a major or the only factor that is contributing to that. Also, multiple issues contribute to the wider health issues that he mentions. It is important that when we consider time, we do not come with half-baked ideas but take time to consider all the implications and not how it will affect just one group of people.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, the number of pubs in the North is decreasing at an alarming rate, and the surrender principle has been highlighted as a key factor in the sector's rapid decline. Many hospitality businesses will be frustrated to hear that you have decided not to introduce any reforms to the surrender principle, despite the independent review recommending changes. What advice did your officials provide to you in relation to reform of the surrender principle, and did you accept that advice?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Let me make it clear that I am the person who is sitting in this chair, and I am the one who makes the decisions. I am fed up with people coming to the House and asking, "Well, what did officials say on this?". Officials are not elected. Officials are not held accountable: I am, though I am happy to confirm to the Member that there was no disagreement on the issue with officials because we have a team in the Department that is very aware of the issues and knowledgeable on what is going on.

I understand that there will be disappointment for some who might say that we do not have changes in place. It is not that there will be no changes. Some reform will take place, and reviews of existing legislation will be under way at the start of next year. We have to understand, however, that what may be a positive consequence for one person might have a detrimental or, in some cases, devastating impact on other people, and those all need to be taken into consideration. That is why I think that we are taking the right approach, which is making sure that we cost proposals, that we impact-assess proposals and that we make sure that they contribute to the overall goals that we have. That is what I am committed to doing.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

Minister, you highlight the value that the hospitality sector adds to the economy. What is that value in real terms?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member is right to highlight the value of the hospitality sector to the economy more widely. The report states that around 6,000 people are directly employed in the pub sector and the wider licensed trade, excluding grocers and supermarkets, and that it directly employs an estimated 27,500 people and sustains 36,000 jobs overall. The report also quotes an independent report commissioned by Hospitality Ulster that states that, in 2017, hospitality provided 8·7% of jobs in Northern Ireland, contributed £1·6 billion to the Northern Ireland economy and generated £88·4 million in tax revenue. That indicates just how important the hospitality sector is to the economy in Northern Ireland and why we need to be careful about making significant changes without having them properly costed or impact-assessed. I would reiterate that point to Mr O'Toole, who took great interest in the subject but seems to have left the Chamber already.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

Thank you, Minister, for your statement. I understand that recommendations 25 and 26 in the response talk about some changes relating to smaller venues and creative spaces and things like that. How does the Department intend to ensure that smaller arts and cultural venues, which often rely on occasional alcohol sales to sustain their programming, are not disadvantaged by any current legislation and by the licensing regime, given that there is no provision for them to really feed in to that? What engagement, if any —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Kellie —.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

— was had during the review process?