Northern Ireland Assembly, 10 March 2026

552 contributions from 65 members. The official report.

Members' Statements

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Partition was never meant to operate on the basis of fairness, equality and parity of opportunity. It was an undemocratic political decision that was imposed upon this island. Citizens across Ireland are living with the consequences daily. Our all-island economy and cross-border trade have grown exponentially over the past decade. The recent Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI) report on assessing economic trends on the island of Ireland shows that North/South trade is continuing to go from strength to strength. That report allows us to better understand our economies and their integration. Increasingly, businesses across Ireland are working together, so it is important that decisions that are taken by the Dublin Government and the Executive keep pace with those changes. The latest trade statistics show comparable levels of trade North and South, with around £4·3 billion worth of trade travelling in each direction. Collectively, the value of North/South trade equated to £8·6 billion in 2025, which underlines the opportunity for growth and prosperity.

While the Southern economy records budget surpluses, here, in the North, Westminster continues to tell us that we have received record funding. The truth is that the underfunding of our public services continues. The British Treasury's claims simply do not stand up. Wealth is created here every day by workers and businesses across the North. Large corporations operate and profit here, yet those profits are often recorded elsewhere and counted as British revenue. Similarly, the value of tax that is paid by workers here remains opaque and unclear. People here pay taxes towards things that bring no benefit to daily life in the North. Money goes on the British monarchy, royal estates, historic war debts and military spending. That money is not available to the Executive to tackle waiting lists, repair roads or build homes. Services are left underfunded, and community groups are cutting the number of staff and vital projects in our most disadvantaged areas. That is not ideology: it is reality.

That system affects everyone. We can no longer pretend that it is working. Working families in nationalist areas feel it, working families in unionist areas feel it, rural communities feel it, and towns and cities feel it. We see it in overcrowded hospitals and broken infrastructure. The result of political choices being tied to the British economic system —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

— has been a catastrophic failure for ordinary people here.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

I highlight the real pressure being faced by households up and down the country as a result of the spike in home heating oil prices. Many people have contacted me, understandably concerned about current global events and their impact on already tight household finances. Regrettably, many local distributors have borne the brunt of public frustration, when, in reality, our focus should be on the wholesalers who serve the Northern Ireland market who have made the decision to hike prices to such obscene levels.

We all benefit from a competitive oil market. Having a healthy number of local suppliers across the country works to local consumers' advantage by ensuring value for money. However, when global energy uncertainty comes to the fore, as it has not only in recent days but in the past, we see what appear to be sickening levels of profiteering by wholesalers. When international markets show the price of crude oil rising by 11%, local rises of 50% and 60% are unjustifiable. It is incumbent upon the House not merely to call that apparent racket out but to take action to stop it and protect our customers. That is why I echo the call made by Gavin Robinson last week for the Economy Minister to take steps to ensure that this is the last time that we allow local consumers to be left at the mercy of oil giants.

With 70% of Northern Ireland households relying on home heating oil, which is significantly above the UK average, the issue requires the Minister's full and urgent attention. An unregulated sector is facilitating an unjust financial impact on all our constituents. Alongside regulation, I call on the Minister to explore the potential for local oil reserves to be used in such circumstances to head off short-term price hikes due to global events.

I am proud that, when our elderly and vulnerable needed support last year, Gordon Lyons stepped in to plug the gap left by Keir Starmer's decision to scrap the winter fuel payment. Once again, the Assembly must act to protect our people and uphold a fair and competitive market.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

I highlight an incredibly important event that took place in my constituency in the town of Donaghadee last week. Donaghadee Community Development Association, alongside North Down and Ards Women's Aid, organised a community conference that focused on domestic abuse and violence, which was called When Home Isn't Safe.

The event shone a light on the often hidden crime of domestic abuse in our communities. It was an opportunity for those who have been affected, for people who wanted to learn more and for organisations providing vital support to come together and share information, bust some of the myths and highlight that anybody in our community can be a victim of that horrific crime. We had presentations from organisations such as Hourglass, the Men's Advisory Project and Women's Aid. They highlighted the wide range of services that they offer and the brilliant work that they do in supporting women, children, men and elderly people with unique services that each of them needs, reiterating that anybody can be a victim of that type of crime.

'The Souls of our Shoes' exhibition from the Mothers' Union was on display. It was incredibly moving and showed lived testimony, with the display of a simple article — shoes — from a victim or survivor, which, often, had been used to walk away to safety or to achieve justice, alongside a quote from that victim. It really brought home to many of us who were there that evening the impact that those crimes have.

The PSNI spoke, and it was welcome to hear how it is using the relatively new offences of coercive control and non-fatal strangulation to address abuse and violent behaviours.

It was very clear, however, that despite receiving a call relating to those types of crimes every 16 minutes, it believes that they are still under-reported.

The most powerful contributions came from victim and survivor testimonies. This insidious crime affects people across society, and the support, recovery and justice journey will be different for them all. They bravely spoke up to raise awareness, in the hope that sharing their story could help someone else and prevent that type of crime happening. I thank the organisers and everyone who attended on the evening. It was a truly worthwhile event, and it will make a difference.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

Since I have been in this place, I have noted that although the people of Northern Ireland enjoy relative peace now, they do not enjoy the full prosperity and first-class public services that they deserve. That is mainly because of the rank incompetence of some people here and the incessant blaming of the Brits, as we have just heard from a Sinn Féin Member, for issues that lie directly within the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

I will give you some examples that would make an episode of 'Yes, Minister' seem too far-fetched. As I said yesterday, it costs some schools hundreds of pounds to change a light bulb because of rules that prevent a caretaker working above a certain height, and schools are charged a call-out fee. Procurement is ripping off the public left, right and centre across all public services. When it should cost a school £1,000 to paint a wall, it is costing £4,000 because of rip-off procurement, but a simple trusted trader scheme could save a huge amount of money.

The lack of accountability in our Executive and our Stormont Assembly is astonishing. I recently asked the Executive Office who was responsible for ensuring that the Police Ombudsman got security clearance vetting when there was an incident at her home. The Executive Office told me that it was the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice told me that it was the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has now replied to me, saying that it is the Executive Office. Round and round it goes, but where it stops nobody ever knows.

Recently, I have been exposing the fact that some people owe hundreds of thousands of pounds to the Department for Communities for benefit fraud. Twenty of those people have repayment plans that are simply £1 a week. One of the debts will take 770 years to pay off. That is ludicrous. There is a Northern Ireland Audit Office report that says that the Northern Ireland Civil Service is vastly underperforming. When I asked Minister O'Dowd who is responsible for the line management of the head of the Civil Service, he replied, "I don't know". This is not a dig at hard-working, front-line civil servants, but when I asked how many members of the Civil Service, given that they have been collectively underperforming, have been marked as underperforming in the organisation, I was told that it is 24 out of 24,500, which is less than 0·01%.

This is a Chamber, of course, that talks about international affairs — Gaza; Venezuela. We are supposed to talk about international affairs that affect the safety of citizens here. When there was a security briefing about how to get our citizens back home, the Minister who calls herself the First Minister for all ran for the hills. We are happy to debate international affairs that are of no relevance to the people of Northern Ireland, but when the safety of people from Northern Ireland who are living in the Middle East depended on it, some Members could not discuss those international affairs. This place needs to change urgently.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I rise today to mark a very important milestone for Derry Women's Aid, which is a remarkable organisation in my city. This year, it celebrates its 50th birthday. For five decades, Derry Women's Aid has been a lifeline for women and children who are experiencing domestic abuse, providing accommodation, outreach services, advocacy and practical support. It has stood beside thousands of women and families at some of the most frightening and uncertain moments in their lives. That work has been carried forward by generations of staff, volunteers and campaigners who have shown compassion, courage and absolute determination. They have not only provided safety when it was most needed, but helped women to rebuild their confidence, reclaim their independence and begin again.

What began 50 years ago as a grassroots response by determined women in our community has grown into an organisation that is widely recognised as an exemplar in supporting women and challenging violence against women and girls. In the heart of Derry, their work represents solidarity and resilience. It sends a powerful message that women should never feel isolated, silenced or trapped by abuse.

I also want to recognise the wider progress that has been made in supporting victims of domestic abuse in our city in recent times. The opening of the Women's Aid Foyle Family Justice Centre in Bishop Street has been a hugely significant step forward. That innovative model places support services around victims as they navigate the justice system, and it allows women to give evidence in a safe and supportive environment, surrounded by the services that can help them through what can be an incredibly difficult time in their life. It is genuinely leading the way, not just here but right across Europe, as a model of how justice systems can be designed around the needs of victims rather than expecting victims to adapt to the system.

I place on record my sincere thanks to the dedicated and committed Marie Brown and everyone who is and has been involved in Foyle Women's Aid, past and present, for 50 years of extraordinary service to the people of our city and to the wider region.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Tugtar deis dúinn leis an tSeachtain um Fheasacht Meabhairshláinte aird a dhíriú ar an ghníomh phráinneach atá de dhíth lena chinntiú go gcuirtear a ndotháin acmhainní ar fáil do na seirbhísí meabhairshláinte, agus do na seirbhísí tacaíochta a chuidíonn leo, le freastal ar an éileamh. Tá obair iontach á déanamh ag grúpaí agus ag carthanais agus iad ag cur tearmann agus spás sábháilte ar fáil do gach duine. Tacaíonn sin le meabhairshláinte na ndaoine, téann sé chun a leasa, agus cothaíonn sé an muintearas agus an dáimh ba chóir bheith ann idir dhaoine. Ach tá a fhios againn go bhfuil géarghantannas oibrithe meabhairshláinte cáilithe ann le freastal ar an éileamh ar sheirbhísí — éileamh atá ag ardú leis.

Ach in ainneoin a ndíchill agus in ainneoin na hoibre iontaí atá na heagraíochtaí sin a dhéanamh, is fadhb ollmhór é an féinmharú inár bpobail go fóill. Is é téama na seachtaine: "Gníomh: duit féin, do dhuine eile, dúinn uile". Ní hualach í an droch-mheabhairshláinte atá le hiompar ag aon duine amháin; tá tacaíocht an phobail chomh maith le cur chuige uilerialtais de dhíth. Tuairiscítear gur chuir 290 duine lámh ina mbás féin anseo sa bhliain 2024. Is scanrúil an figiúr é sin. Is féidir teacht roimh na básanna sin, ach daoine an tacaíocht agus an cuidiú cuí a fháil. De na daoine sin a chuir lámh ina mbás féin, meastar go raibh 70% acu gan aon bhaint ghníomhach a bheith acu leis na seirbhísí meabhairshláinte. Is é an chéad chéim le leas a bhaint as na seirbhísí sin ná labhairt faoinár meabhairshláinte, cúnamh a iarraidh, agus ár smaointe agus ár mothúcháin a ligean le duine éigin.

Cuirim fáilte roimh an fhógra go mbeidh fiosrúchán traspháirtí ann ar an dóigh a ndéantar maoiniú ar sheirbhísí um fhéinmharú a chosc sa Tuaisceart. Tá súil agam go gcuideoidh torthaí an fhiosrúcháin linn ár n-aird agus ár n-iarrachtaí a dhíriú d’fhonn torthaí dearfacha meabhairshláinte a bhaint amach feasta.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I rise to recognise a significant milestone in the life and godly witness of one of our oldest Presbyterian congregations. On 6 March 2026, Ballywalter Presbyterian Church in my constituency of Strangford celebrated 400 years of continuous ministry in the village. The celebrations marked the anniversary of the installation in 1626 of the Reverend James Hamilton as the first Presbyterian minister on the Ards peninsula. A nephew of Viscount Clandeboye, Reverend Hamilton was ordained in March 1626 and faithfully served the growing Scottish community for a decade. That date is commemorated on the front of my old office in the village, the former Presbyterian church hall. For four centuries, Ballywalter Presbyterian Church has been at the very heart of village life. The congregation has provided spiritual and pastoral support and practical service to every generation. Its distinctive building on Main Street, completed in 1889, stands as a landmark of faith and community.

The weekend celebrations, which included a concert, a special historical exhibition and a service of thanksgiving, were a wonderful success. I warmly congratulate the minister, the Rev Gareth Simpson, the kirk session, the congregation and all the supporting groups and volunteers who worked so hard to make the anniversary memorable and meaningful. Their faithfulness over 400 years is an inspiration to us all. I extend my sincere congratulations and best wishes to the entire Ballywalter Presbyterian family as it looks forward to the years ahead.

I record special thanks to the Ulster-Scots Agency for generously supporting the celebrations, to Mark Thompson and to Billy Carlile of the Ballywalter and District Historical Society for pulling together all the information. Congratulations to all involved.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

Rosetta Primary School is a cornerstone of that part of south Belfast. For the past number of years, its school hall has been closed, owing to significant structural concerns about the roof. I met Mr McGarrigle recently and saw the hall for myself. There is a padlocked door and steel poles propping up the roof. I was told that concerns about the condition of the roof were first raised nine years ago, but, since 2023, access has been restricted because of rain. The hall is now not used. It is not safe, and no permanent solution has been delivered.

Parents, staff and the community have been asking us, as elected representatives, what we can do about it. The impact on parents and staff has been profound. There is no appropriate space for indoor PE. There are no assemblies or whole-school gatherings. The principal, who is new to the school, feels that he has not had the chance to address the community as a whole. One parent told me that her child is now in P2 and has never been in the school hall; she said that her child does not even know where it is. There are no performances or shared community events, and the ongoing disruption to timetabling and curriculum delivery is having an impact. We all know what it was like when we were at primary school. We all have memories of being part of plays and being with children of other ages. At the moment, Rosetta Primary School's children are being denied that.

There has been extensive engagement with the Education Authority (EA), including site visits, repeated correspondence and assurances of reports that never materialise. We do not have a clear timeline outlining when and how the matter will be resolved. Deadlines have been missed, and essential reports have been delayed. The school is in a state of prolonged uncertainty. It has had to go to the media to raise as much awareness as possible to try to get the matter dealt with.

The school is asking for four simple things: a clear and transparent update on the status of the project; confirmation of allocated funding; a defined timeline for permanent remediation; and accountability for the delays that have brought the matter to this point. The school has not apportioned blame to anyone. Its focus is on securing a timely and sustainable solution for the children of the school. Every child in every school should have access to a school hall, and the EA now needs to resolve the situation as a matter of urgency.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I will highlight the amazing work of Mainstay DRP in Downpatrick and its new social enterprise, Silent Cuts. Silent Cuts offers sensory-friendly appointments for adults and children with sensory needs who may find it difficult to visit a hair salon or barber's. That quiet space with dimmed lighting and minimal distractions is the perfect inclusive and calm environment in which to get their hair cut. It employs fully trained stylists. Those ladies are absolutely amazing, and they are experienced in supporting clients with sensory needs. They offer flexibility and choices for clients, such as opting out of the usual small talk, bringing in their own comfort objects, choosing whether to have the radio on, off or turned down low and sitting in a chair with or without a mirror in front of it. The salon also has sensory lights and toys for children.

The salon is closed to the public for a couple of days a week so that training can be provided to its apprentices, who also have special educational needs or disabilities. I was lucky to get to chat to some of them, and it was lovely to hear what working there meant to them.

I was also honoured to be invited along to Silent Cuts' official opening. I was completely blown away by the entire concept and just how truly inclusive it is.

Those of us with children know that early-years haircuts can be really challenging, but, for a child with sensory needs, it can be a truly traumatic experience for the child and their parents. I spoke with one mother who had tried on many occasions to take her son to get his hair cut. After so much stress and anxiety, she just had to give up. No matter how patient and good the hairdresser was, the child just could not handle his hair being touched and all the sounds that go along with a haircut. She explained how Silent Cuts came along just as she had resigned herself to the fact that she would never be able to have her son's hair cut in a proper salon. Silent Cuts' entire concept met their needs, from him entering through the door to him leaving with a huge smile on his face and freshly cut hair. It might seem trivial to many, but it certainly is not trivial for parents who have to face those issues.

I was delighted to see that Silent Cuts received £2,000 after winning the Social Enterprise Dragons' Den competition, which is supported by Community Finance Ireland. I pay tribute to everyone involved in the project and encourage everyone to check out its services. I wish Silent Cuts the very best of luck in the years ahead.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

Yesterday, this place marked European Remembrance Day for Victims of Terrorism, which takes place tomorrow. I was unable to attend the event, but I take this opportunity to say that I stand in solidarity with the innocent victims represented yesterday and, in particular, with those who still await justice.

Speaking of innocent victims of terrorism, also yesterday, I, along with a number of other representatives, had the opportunity — one that, I have to say, I was conflicted about taking — to see some unedited footage of the Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) attacks on Israel on October 7. I saw the horrors of terrorism that can be wrought upon innocent people living their everyday lives. I am glad that I took the opportunity to confront that, even if some of it will stay with those of us who watched it for a long time and even if I had to avert my eyes on a number of occasions from the sheer barbarity of what was carried out.

Children, parents and grandparents — ordinary people living ordinary lives — were murdered in their beds and kitchens, burned in cars and, of course, murdered at a music festival by what I can only describe as animals, who, with demonic zeal, chanted "Allahu Akbar", declared themselves heroes and called their families to boast of killing their first Jew or about how many they had killed. One repeatedly told his parents on the phone, "I've killed 10, I've killed 10: your son is a hero". A father panicked, guiding his young sons, all in their underwear, to a small safe room in the garden, where a big, brave Hamas terrorist — the people, perhaps, whom Gerry Carroll referred to as "the Palestinian Resistance" — seconds later, threw in a hand grenade to murder and maim. Heads were removed by shovels to gleeful chants and cheers; they were played with, and orders were given to take photos. I could not watch that scene, but, even as I turned my eyes away, it was clear what was about to happen. Women with their clothes torn from them were lifted like a prize to be showcased on the streets of Gaza from the back of trucks to celebratory cheers. Supposedly ordinary civilians but, in my opinion, animals — vermin — kicked at the lifeless bodies.

Watching that footage should not be undertaken lightly, but there are Members in the Chamber who, I wish, should take such an opportunity: those who have criticisms of both sides in that conflict and those who have, frankly, been apologists for Palestinian terrorism by whatever name they choose to call it. They may well draw attention to scenes from Gaza, with which, I imagine, they are much more familiar, but I wonder how anyone who had seen that footage would be able to quite so enthusiastically defend Hamas, PIJ or the many ordinary Palestinians who joined the attack that day. Undoubtedly, they would then know why, across the Israeli political spectrum and the Israeli people, while different views exist on the conflict, there is unison in the determination that that will not be allowed to happen again and that whatever is required to prevent it must be done.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Last Wednesday, the Executive Office Committee pack contained a letter from the chief commissioner of the Equality Commission, dealing with the toilet policy operated in this Building. That policy allows individuals to access the toilets of the opposite sex on the basis of their supposed gender identity. To put that in layman's terms, a man pretending to be a woman can access female toilets: that is simply wrong and must stop.

The letter contains two salient points. First, it makes it clear that the Assembly's policy has been shaped by guidance that the Equality Commission regards as outdated. I will quote directly from the chief commissioner:

"With the passage of time this guidance is no longer satisfactory as it does not take account of more recent interpretations of the law provided by the employment tribunals and courts which began to be handed down from mid-2021."

Secondly, the commission recommended that the Assembly Commission seeks its own legal advice about the policy.

The Assembly should treat those matters with the utmost seriousness. A Committee of the House now has it in black and white that the legal basis of the toilet policy operating in this Building is open to serious question. That cannot be allowed to continue. It is time for those who sit on the Assembly Commission to change the current policy to reflect biological reality. The current policy is repugnant to common sense, biologically illiterate and an insult to women, girls and the children who use the building.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I call Michelle Guy. You have two minutes.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Yesterday, the Justice Minister launched an incredibly important campaign to challenge common myths about rape. Experiencing sexual assault is traumatic. It is life-changing, and it is not for those of us who have not experienced that trauma to presume to tell victims how they should respond to it.

Rape myths are deeply damaging. They create shame and self-blame for victims; they discourage reporting; and, far too often, they shift the focus away from the perpetrator and onto the person who has been harmed. As Gisèle Pelicot said so powerfully, "Shame must change sides". If we are serious about achieving that, we must challenge such myths clearly, confidently and with care. For example, "If both people were drinking, it is not really rape": that is a myth. Someone who is intoxicated cannot give informed consent. "If you did not report it immediately, it did not happen": myth. Taking time to report an assault does not mean that it did not happen; it reflects the reality of a deeply personal trauma. "If there are no physical injuries, it must have been consensual": myth. Rape is defined by the absence of consent, not the presence of violence; violence is not required for it to be a crime.

I hope that Members will support the campaign as it rolls out on social media, but challenging the myths cannot happen through social media alone. Education is central to changing attitudes and preventing harm in the first place. As a member of the Education Committee, I particularly welcome the support provided by the Department of Education and the Council for the Curriculum, Examinations and Assessment in making resources available to teachers through the relationships and sexuality education (RSE) hub. High-quality RSE plays a vital role in helping young people understand consent, respect and healthy relationships. It equips them to challenge harmful narratives, recognise abusive behaviour and support one another. Resources like that give teachers the tools to have informed age-appropriate conversations and to build a culture where victims are believed, harmful attitudes are challenged early and the responsibility is placed where it belongs —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

— with the perpetrator.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

That brings to a conclusion Members' statements.

Speaker's Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I would like to inform the House that I will not be in the Chamber for business on Monday 16 March as I am undertaking engagements in the United States.

Assembly Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

David Brooks has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22. The Member will have up to three minutes to speak.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

Today, I present a public petition on behalf of Zuzana Revayova of CitizenGo. It had been signed by over 68,000 people from across Northern Ireland and beyond when it was given to me, and it is now nearing 100,000 signatures online. The petition expresses deep concern about the future place of Christianity and the Christian ethos in our schools. The petition arose in the wake of the UK Supreme Court’s ruling on religious education and collective worship, a judgement that prompted understandable anxiety among many parents, teachers, Churches and local communities.

For generations, Christian faith and values have played a foundational role in shaping education in Northern Ireland. Our schools were built not only to provide academic learning but to nurture moral character, service to others and respect for the traditions that have shaped our society. Many of those who signed the petition feared that, in response to the court's ruling, forthcoming reforms could unintentionally weaken or marginalise Christian teaching, even in schools that were founded with a clear Christian ethos and identity.

The petitioners are not calling for exclusion or intolerance; they are asking that Christianity continue to have a respected and meaningful place in education, reflecting Northern Ireland's historical, cultural and legal foundations. They are asking for parents' rights, including the right to have their children educated in accordance with their convictions and beliefs, to be respected.

I spoke to Zuzana this morning. She has followed events in the Assembly and been reassured by the response of the Education Minister, Paul Givan, who has set out a measured and balanced way forward. The Minister has confirmed that Christianity will remain central to the religious education syllabus, reflecting Northern Ireland's historical and cultural context, while the curriculum is reviewed to ensure that it is academically robust and consistent with the court's judgement.

Those who have signed the petition will be thankful that the Minister has brought clarity by stating that collective worship will continue in schools and that the review process will involve consultation with Churches, teachers, parents and the wider community. Those commitments provide important reassurance that the response to the judgement will respect the law and safeguard the place of Christianity in our education system.

The message of the petition is simple: people across Northern Ireland and, indeed, the UK value the Christian heritage of our schools and want to see it protected, respected and carried forward for future generations. I therefore commend the petition to the House.

Mr Brooks moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I will forward the petition to the Minister of Education and send a copy to the Committee.

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

Ministerial Statement

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I wish to provide the House with an update on how my Department will assess and deliver future residents' parking schemes across the North. I am very much aware that parking is an issue of concern for residents in many areas, and, along with my officials, I have carefully considered the best ways of addressing that.

Members will recall that, whilst the residents' parking review published in November 2024 found that the scheme for Rugby Road/College Park Avenue in Belfast had worked well, it identified challenges that resulted in other schemes not being able to progress. Those included the resource-intensive nature of the current departmental process and the inability to secure the level of buy-in from residents and businesses required for schemes to progress to implementation.

Following publication of the review, there has been significant interest in the establishment of residents' parking zones. Given the demand and ongoing budgetary and resource constraints, my Department has developed an application and assessment process for residents' parking schemes that will ensure a streamlined process for considering, assessing and prioritising requests for schemes going forward.

In April 2026, my Department will open the new, demand-led application process that will enable individuals and communities to bring forward proposals for residents' parking zones for formal consideration. That approach follows recommendations from the residents' parking review report, which confirmed that residents' parking zones can work well where there is a clear local need but identified changes required to deliver schemes more effectively. To ensure effective management of the application process, the window for applications will open initially for a period of three months and will reopen on a cyclical basis. That approach will allow my Department to better coordinate the assessment and prioritisation of schemes so that the process is managed in a structured, transparent and efficient way.

The demand-led pathway will allow applicants to submit requests for their area to be considered for a residents' parking zone, providing my Department with information about the nature, extent and timing of parking pressures. In order for any scheme to be eligible for consideration, proposals must demonstrate persistent commuter or nuisance parking; cover adopted public streets only; have fewer than 50% of properties with access to private off-street parking such as driveways; and include evidence of local support for a scheme.

Further information on residents' parking zones, including guidance on how to apply, will be published on nidirect and on my Department's website. The resources will provide any potential applicant with as much information as possible to allow them to consider whether a scheme is suitable for their area before submitting an application.

Following the application stage, my Department will confirm that a majority of residents living in the proposed area support the introduction of a scheme. Each household and business in a proposed scheme will be issued with a ballot addressed to the occupier. A return rate of at least 50% plus one of those balloted in support of a proposed scheme will be required for a scheme to progress.

Securing an overall majority of residents' support for a residents' parking zone within specified areas is a fundamental part of the demand-led application and assessment process to ensure that more schemes can be delivered across the North going forward. That reflects a balanced approach and underpins the fact that schemes are community-driven, while being deliverable and sustainable.

Following the confirmation of support for a scheme, my Department will verify that off-street parking access is below 50% and that there is sufficient kerbside capacity to design a workable zone. Engagement will take place with the PSNI and the relevant local council, and traffic and parking surveys will be commissioned to establish viability before moving to the design and statutory consultation processes under the existing policy framework. Any applications that do not meet the required criteria at any stage of the process or fail to garner the necessary resident support when balloted will not be reconsidered for a residents' parking scheme for another five years, unless there has been a significant change in circumstances in the area. That aligns with best practice in other jurisdictions, where similar cooling-off periods are used to manage demand and encourage well-considered and community-backed applications.

The process of assessing, designing, consulting on and potentially implementing a residents' parking scheme is resource-intensive. Introducing a five-year interval will help to ensure that resources are used efficiently and are not repeatedly directed towards areas where there is insufficient support or where a scheme is not viable. This approach aims to deliver workable community-backed residents' parking zones that improve neighbourhood liveability while making best use of available resources.

The delivery of more schemes will also help to persuade those who currently drive into our towns and cities and park all day to use more active or sustainable modes of transport. Alongside that demand-led pathway, which will launch in April, I remain committed to continuing to develop schemes where work has already commenced, such as those in Derry and the Iveagh area of Belfast. My Department will also give consideration to a scheme that could address the emerging on-street parking pressures in the vicinity of the Ulster University campus in Belfast.

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

Thank you, Minister. I genuinely welcome the statement today. It is welcome to see progress in this area. The Rugby Road scheme is around the corner from my constituency office. Many parts of the statement apply to inner south Belfast probably more than to areas in any other constituency across the North. Communities in the Markets, lower Ormeau, Donegall Pass and Stranmillis will all be interested in the scheme. However, there will be a concern and a question about the 50% plus one barrier, particularly in some areas where there are high levels of short-term rentals, for example, by students in the Holylands, Stranmillis and the lower Lisburn Road. Is that not a high bar for those areas, and will you devote resource to those areas to ensure that there is proper turnout? There is a fairly transitory population in lots of those areas, so permanent residents will want to ensure that they are not caught out simply by the high number of people in short-term lets who may or may not respond to a ballot.

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I appreciate the issues that the Member has raised. Officials will continue to explore any further measures to strengthen the process. I recognise that there may be anomalies. The 50% plus one threshold was brought in to recognise that there will be areas that have significant support, and we really want to ensure that they are properly considered. There may be differences in student areas, for example, but we have been working on a similar scheme in the Magee area of Derry. That will help to guide how we move things forward.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her statement. The Infrastructure Committee has received oral evidence that there could be a high demand for such schemes. What specific resources will be dedicated to meeting that demand in her Department? How will her Department ensure that applicants for such a scheme are kept informed of progress?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As I outlined, it is resource-intensive. We will have a team of officials working on it. We have put in certain parameters to try to manage demand. I think that there will be a significant demand. There will be a lead-in time before the application process opens. The information will be up on the website from today, ahead of the application process officially opening. I hope that that will help to ensure that people have plenty of time to get their head around what is required and to assess whether this is the proper pathway for them and their area.

I have forgotten the second question.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

How will your Department ensure that applicants are kept informed of progress on a given scheme?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

That is an integral part of the entire process.

Whilst it is not possible to outline specific timelines at this stage, we have an approximate timeline for how long each stage of the process will take. It will depend on demand for the scheme and how departmental resources are directed. Once the application process closes, we will have a better idea of the sort of time frames that we can expect.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Before I call Cathal, I will say that I gave you a bit of leeway, Peter, as the Chair of the Committee, as that was two questions. I let you away with that. Thank you, Minister, for doing him the honour of answering his second question.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for the statement. As the Minister is aware, one of the reasons why such schemes are so important is that nuisance parking can prevent emergency services or health and social care workers from accessing patients' properties. To ensure that patients receive the best care and that that care is timely, will there be permits for carers and community nurses?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Absolutely. I can think of examples in my constituency of where parking like this can impact on householders and local residents' ability to get access to emergency services and other services that are critical to their day-to-day lives. I hope that the scheme will alleviate some pressures by freeing up access. In the case of domiciliary carers, community nurses and other things like that, the local health and social care trust or independent providers of domiciliary care can apply on behalf of the staff who deliver care to people. The carer permits will be issued free of charge.

Peter McReynolds (Alliance, Belfast East)

Minister, you said that the new approach will open in April. In January 2025, the Infrastructure Committee heard that 230 applications were still in the system. What will happen to those applications?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Everyone will have to make a new application, because we have done a lot of work to streamline the process. Whilst we have pre-committed to a number of schemes, which I mentioned in my statement, all areas that would like to apply now will have to put in a new application.

John Stewart (UUP, East Antrim)

I welcome the Minister's statement. What is the plan for enforcement? We have seen traffic measures installed elsewhere across the country, and they have been welcomed by residents, but those residents invariably get frustrated by the lack of enforcement when people break the rules. Will it be enforced by the police, the councils, the red coats or a combination of some of those? What engagement have you had with them?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I recognise that effective enforcement is an integral part of the success of any residents' parking scheme. It is important that that enforcement helps to ensure that the scheme is respected and delivers the intended benefits. As happens with the scheme that is in place on Rugby Road, enforcement of further schemes will be implemented by our departmental traffic enforcement teams, which are responsible for ensuring compliance with all parking restrictions and regulations across the North. As with any breach of parking regulations, a penalty charge notice will be issued. Enforcement will, therefore, be delivered through our teams, but we will also engage with the PSNI on broader delivery.

Órlaithí Flynn (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I thank the Minister for her statement and for all the work that she has carried out on the issue. The problem of nuisance parking impacts on a lot of us. Minister, many areas that are in need of a residents' parking scheme are also neighbourhood renewal areas. Will there be any exemptions for such areas?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

We recognised that issue during the development of the new process. The cost of a resident permit or business permit is currently £30. That is valid for a year. That will, however, be reviewed periodically to ensure that it remains sustainable. There will be exemptions wherever some of the proposed schemes are wholly or partially in neighbourhood renewal areas, and permits will be issued to residents and blue-badge holders, free of charge.

Stephen Dunne (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her statement. The review is welcome. It is fair to say that too few schemes have been delivered over the past number of years, despite considerable concern from residents across Northern Ireland, including in Bangor and Holywood in my constituency, where significant interest remains. Minister, in your previous response, you talked about cost. Will you clarify whether that will be an annual fee? Will it be one space per household, as has been the case previously?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

It is an annual fee. That will be kept under review to establish how sustainable it is.

As I mentioned, one of the considerations that will be taken into account when doing an assessment for a scheme is whether there is off-street parking, such as a driveway, available. That will be looked at in the round. We also have to ensure that proposed areas for a scheme have a workable solution. For example, is there enough space to deliver the scheme properly? That will be worked out through the process. We will look at the requirement for 1·2 parking spaces per property. A bit of methodology is involved in how that is worked out, but it will be taken into consideration to ensure that there is ample parking for everyone involved.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

I thank the Minister for her statement. What mitigations will the scheme provide in rural town centres, where there are a lot of competing pressures from businesses, commuters and private residents? I will not say that there is conflict between the two, but there is DFI-owned land and there are council-owned parking areas. How will the measure help address and mitigate the issue in rural towns?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

In residential areas where there is a particular issue with commuter or nuisance parking, with people parking for long periods, which affects the ability of local residents to get access to or park close to their home, the aim of the scheme is to mitigate those challenges.

I appreciate your point about the different car parks that are there, but the schemes are looking at residential areas specifically. For example, in Belfast, people park in residential areas that are near their workplace. I know that there are particular issues in some student areas and suchlike. It is therefore about trying to strike a balance so that residents are not forced to park very far away from their home because of people from outside the area coming in and parking there all day. I hope that that answers your question, but if you need more specific information, please let me know.

I assume that there are similar impacts in rural areas. Where there are challenges, I encourage people to have a look at the application process and submit an application, because we will look at everything in the round and take on board the unique circumstances that may affect certain areas.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a ráitis ar maidin.

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

The Minister will be aware that residents of the Iveagh area of west Belfast have been waiting a long time for a scheme. I am glad to see from the statement that it will now proceed quickly. What are the next steps for the scheme in the Iveagh area?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The scheme represents a good step forward, because I know that parking is a particular issue there, and people have been waiting a long time for a scheme. We developed the process because what existed previously did not meet the needs of communities, so, hopefully, the various schemes will help create broader benefits right across the North.

On the scheme for the Iveagh area, the proposals for the residents' parking zone are being finalised to enable officials to carry out a formal consultation. Any further progress made on that will be subject to the satisfactory completion of the legislative process.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

I welcome the Minister's statement. Minister, what comparisons were made with other jurisdictions? I know that you mentioned that areas will have to reapply, but I just mean in general. Is the scheme open to all areas, all towns and all cities?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

We looked across all jurisdictions to see what has and has not worked well and at our experience of the previous process. We very much took the view that the process should be based on good practice in areas where we have seen such schemes run smoothly. One of the developments as part of that work is that the schemes will be designed very much from the Department's perspective, because one of the challenges in the past was that the design went back and forth between residents and kept changing, and we then did not make any progress, because it was very difficult to agree on something that suited everyone. The support will absolutely be community-led, but the Department will design the schemes to ensure a more efficient and effective process.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

I also welcome the scheme. In my time as an MLA, I have been contacted by many residents about nuisance parking. I will build on the question from my colleague to my right about enforcement. What assessment has the Department conducted of current enforcement capacity, and what additional enforcement will be required as more schemes come online?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

That will very much depend on the demand for schemes. As I said earlier, it is a resource-intensive process. There are various stages: application, assessment and implementation. As we go through the process, we will be able to work out exactly what enforcement capacity we will need. In areas in which a number of schemes will be in place, staff will not be required to be in one location for 24 hours a day or anything like that, but we will be able to manage our resources to meet the need. We are at the earlier stages, but, as we go through the process and once the application window closes, we will have a better sense of what is required and what resources we will need to deliver the schemes.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister. This will be welcome news to many of the inner-city communities in my South Belfast constituency, including the one in which I live. I also welcome the fact that the Department will consider streets in and around the Ulster University campus. Will you outline which streets will be considered?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The Department is committed to giving consideration to a residents' parking scheme to address the emerging pressures that are faced around the Ulster University campus area in Belfast. As part of that, officials will undertake feasibility work for the potential of the scheme in Lancaster Street, Thomas Street, McGurks Way, Portland Place and part of Great Georges Street. Any further progress will be subject to satisfactory completion of the same legislative process that I outlined in relation to Iveagh.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for her statement. My question goes a bit broader than residential parking. As you will know, a trial is under way for electric charging leads going across footpaths etc. How will that trial and this policy tie in together to prevent issues in the future, bearing in mind that people will need to park outside their house if they are going to charge their car? What thought has been put into that to tie the two schemes together?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

This is a scheme that seeks to ensure that people are able to park closer to their homes. I hope that it will benefit anywhere where there is a problem with people from outside the area nuisance parking, or preventing someone who needs cross-pavement access for charging from doing so. These schemes will operate within restricted hours. They will look at the peak times for particular problems with commuters, or whomever it may be, parking in residential areas and impacting on residents. I hope that that will be a natural mitigation for people who require cross-pavement charging.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you, Minister, for the statement. No doubt, many residents in south Belfast will be delighted to see the scheme opening, especially in the Ormeau Road area, where they are concerned about the impact that the Glider will have on parking, and Stranmillis. Minister, you will be aware that the consultation for a scheme in the lower Lisburn Road area — the Eglantine area — failed because it was blocked by local businesses. How will their voices feature in the community-support issue?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

We have looked at a threshold of 50% plus one to ensure that minority voices are heard and recognised. The example that you have given is one of the issues that has arisen in the past. I hope that we can address that to ensure that local residents in the area can get a solution that will benefit them more widely. As I said earlier, we will be looking at the process continually to see if there are ways in which it can be strengthened. Matthew O'Toole gave the example of short-term lets, and we will be looking at things like that. Hopefully, as we go through the process and get the applications in, we will get a better sense of whether more work is required in relation to unique issues.

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

I thank the Minister for her statement. Minister, in our great constituency of Newry and Armagh, I highlight the residents of Boat Street, Newry; Derrybeg and Gantry Lane, near Newry train station; Green Road, Bessbrook; Monaghan Row, Newry; Windmill Avenue, Armagh; Castle Street, Armagh; and Edward Street, Armagh. They are at their wits' end trying to find parking outside their homes. Progress on a pathway for the introduction of a residents' parking scheme is welcome, but, as you have outlined, the process of assessing decisions, carrying out consultations and implementing the schemes is time- and resource-intensive. When can residents expect the introduction of these schemes?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

To address your earlier points, the idea of developing the process is to ensure that we find solutions for residents who have been particularly impacted by nuisance parking and an inability to park close to their homes. I am, obviously, familiar with many of the areas that you mentioned.

As I said, the application process is due to open next month, so I encourage anybody who has an issue to look at the information that will go live on the website today so that they can get up to speed with what is required and what the criteria are and can prepare themselves for the application process. The timeline for implementation will very much depend on the level of demand. A number of stages have to be completed to get approval, and every area will be treated in that way when going through the process. It is important that, during this lead-in time, people get as much information as possible, prepare the required evidence and then get their applications in at the earliest possible stage. We will certainly endeavour to process applications in the timeliest manner possible.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for her answers so far and for meeting me recently to discuss these schemes. Councillor Grace Uí Niallais and I have been working with local residents in Derry, particularly on the Magee scheme and in relation to areas surrounding the Magee campus, which will expand over the coming years. I welcome the Minister's commitment to that area, and it is very welcome that the statement outlines that that scheme will not change based on the new proposals because it is already in situ, or at least in progress. Will the Minister give an update on the timeline for that? How does she think that it will roll out over the next weeks and months?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As the Member may be aware, my officials regularly attend the university community engagement forum to discuss a residents' parking zone for the Magee area. We have held a number of events dedicated to that. Based on the feedback that has been obtained through those engagements, including with residents' groups who have engaged directly with households, an updated proposal was shared with the engagement forum. Following the most recent meeting of the forum, officials are now undertaking the agreed amendments to the proposal ahead of further planned engagement events. That will hopefully ensure that progress continues and that we see implementation in the not-so-distant future.

Connie Egan (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, Minister. Residents in my constituency of North Down who live near beauty spots, beaches and visitor attractions often have access to their properties impeded or have access for emergency service vehicles blocked. When you are considering the roll-out of residents' parking schemes, will you take such circumstances into consideration?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Absolutely. The criteria very clearly lay out what will constitute nuisance parking. There are variations of that for different circumstances. For example, during the week, there is a lower threshold, but, at weekends, the issues are more likely to be in line with what the Member describes because there may be more tourists, for example. All those things will be taken into consideration. As I said, the information will be online from today, and that, hopefully, will set out very clearly for people who have unique circumstances where exactly they will fit into the process.

Michelle Guy (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for her really welcome statement. My constituency office in Moira often gets complaints from residents about access to their homes competing with access to businesses. Equally, we get the same concerns raised by parents who are doing school drop-offs and pickups. How will the scheme balance those competing priorities? What is the lead-in time for new schemes to come online?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

School pickup times are probably not the same as the issue that we are talking about. We are thinking of a more sustained situation that lasts a number of hours. I think that the minimum is about five hours, but I will get clarification on how long someone can park outside a property. It is very much targeted at the areas of highest need where there is long-term parking by people who are not from the area that is directly impeding local residents. However, if there are specific areas where that is a long-term issue, we can take that into consideration. As I said, once the information goes live, it will, hopefully, be clearer as to what exactly is included and whether the examples that the Member is aware of meet the threshold. It is mainly targeted at commuters or others who park outside homes and affecting residents' access in a sustained way that is causing serious issues, not just for residents' own access but access for emergency services and other services that need to access properties throughout the day.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Minister, in a previous answer, you stated that the metric that is used is 1·2 parking spaces per property where sufficient residential parking does not exist and where DFI owns green space. Will investment finally be made in local section offices to alleviate the parking problems faced by residents across many of our towns and villages? If it is not included in this scheme — I do not think that it is — what are your plans to address that issue?

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

As you will be aware, the Department is working on transport plans for all the council areas across the North. There is the eastern transport plan, which takes into consideration a number of council areas. Outside of that, individual council areas will work on that. That is a prime opportunity for areas to have input and identify where there are significant issues, of which parking is one, while enhancing public transport access, active travel routes and all those things to ensure that we offer many different modes of transport and keep our towns and cities moving.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Thank you very much indeed, ladies and gentlemen. That concludes questions on the statement.

Executive Committee Business

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I beg to move

That the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026 be approved.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

The Business Committee has agreed that there should be no time limit on the debate. I call on the Minister to open the debate on the motion.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the opportunity to bring the motion to the House. I do not propose to cover in detail the background and operation of the UK emissions trading scheme (ETS). However, I am happy to address any clarification questions that Members may have.

Members and, in particular, members of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs have engaged positively with my Department on the emissions trading scheme. There is good understanding across the Chamber of the importance of the UK-wide decarbonisation scheme to our Northern Ireland and wider UK climate targets. The proposals contained in the Order have been subject to extensive local and UK-wide stakeholder engagement dating back to 2022, when they were first proposed, through a wide-ranging consultation on developing the UK ETS and, more recently, a consultation specifically on expanding the scope of the UK ETS to include emissions from domestic maritime voyages.

The domestic maritime sector is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. We are conscious of the need to address that. It is envisaged that including domestic maritime emissions within the scope of the UK ETS will help overcome a key barrier in the decarbonisation of the sector, which is that the current prices of maritime fuels do not reflect their environmental costs. Its inclusion in the scheme will strengthen the incentives to adopt low-carbon fuels and support the deployment of fuel-efficient technologies and practices. The policy is expected to deliver a UK-wide net emissions reduction of approximately 645,000 tons of carbon dioxide equivalent over the next 20 years. That reduction will have associated air quality benefits.

Alongside my counterparts in England, Scotland and Wales, I agreed to the content and subsequent publication in July 2025 of an initial interim response to the consultation to allow maritime operators and regulators time to prepare for the requirements of the scheme. In November 2025, I agreed to the content and publication of the main response, which outlined the remaining provisions to be included in the draft Order. Executive colleagues and Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs colleagues have been kept fully informed throughout the process.

The Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026 was laid under the draft affirmative resolution procedure before both Houses of Parliament, the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and the Northern Ireland Assembly on 13 January 2026 under the UK Climate Change Act 2008, which requires that the Order be laid in draft and debated in each legislature where it is to have effect. So far, the Order has been debated and approved in the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and the House of Commons. If it is approved, the Order will extend the scope of the UK ETS to domestic maritime emissions.

I will now outline the main provisions of the draft Order. It defines domestic journeys as voyages travelling from one UK port to another, as well as voyages that start and end at the same UK port. It also includes emissions within a voyage, including while at anchor and while moored. It will also include all import emissions comprised of emissions at berth in UK ports and emissions from movements in UK ports from ships travelling domestically, internationally or both. The threshold for inclusion in the scheme will be vessels of 5,000 gross tons and above. The same threshold is already used for existing monitoring, reporting and verification regimes in the UK and internationally. The majority of ships of that size are already equipped for collecting and reporting emissions data, which should facilitate a smoother transition for operators. Small local ferries, such as the Rathlin Island ferry and the Strangford lough ferry, will not fall into the scope, as they are well below that threshold, contrary to previous comment around this. Emissions of methane and nitrous oxide, as well as carbon dioxide, will be included within scope. The same regulatory regime will apply to the maritime sector as applies to the rest of the UK ETS, including the definition of scheme year and reporting and surrender deadlines.

The draft Order sets out that the obligation to comply with UK ETS should be applied to the registered owner of the vessel, except where the responsibility has been delegated by a legally binding agreement. Significantly, I have secured, as an interim measure, a 50% partial exemption from UK ETS obligations for emissions from routes between Northern Ireland and GB. That will ensure parity with routes between the Republic of Ireland and GB, which are already subject to 50% emissions coverage under EU ETS, and it has been welcomed by stakeholders. It should also help to mitigate any potential cost impacts on consumers in Northern Ireland. The future inclusion of international maritime emissions in UK ETS, as referenced in the common understanding from the UK-EU summit on 19 May and on which a UK-wide consultation has recently concluded, will subsequently ensure parity in the Irish Sea and remove the need for the partial exemption.

A full impact assessment has been undertaken alongside the draft Order, and further analysis, at my Department's request, was conducted by the authority looking specifically at the potential impacts on Northern Ireland across cruise ships, passengers and cargo. The analysis indicated that the impact on Northern Ireland consumers is expected to be minor. The findings from the analysis are supported by emerging data from the EU, which has included maritime emissions within scope since 2024. The inclusion of offshore vessels in the UK ETS will be delayed until January 2027, which aligns with the position for offshore vessels in the EU, helping to avoid the risk of gaming created by any policy divergence or misalignment.

An exemption will be provided for ferries serving Scottish islands and peninsulas due to the legal duties imposed by the Islands (Scotland) Act 2018 on the Scottish Government to consider the vulnerability of small island populations and their reliance on the mainland for lifeline services such as emergency healthcare and education. An exemption is also provided for vessels in the fishing sector, which mirrors the EU position and will ensure that Northern Ireland fishing vessels will not be disadvantaged against those operating out of Irish ports. Government non-commercial maritime activity is fully exempted from UK ETS. Exemptions will be reviewed as part of the review in 2028, which will look at wider socio-economic impacts of the expansion and the ability of various sectors to decarbonise. The allowance cap will be increased in line with predicted emissions for the maritime sector for the remainder of phase 1 of UK ETS. That will ensure that an undue burden will not fall on existing scheme participants while maintaining a net zero trajectory.

As announced at the UK-EU summit on 19 May 2025, the UK and the EU have agreed to work towards linking the UK ETS and EU ETS, the parameters of which are set out in the common understanding text agreed following the summit. That understanding stipulates that the maritime sector, among others, should be in the scope of a linking agreement. Linking should create the conditions to facilitate mutual exemptions from the EU and proposed UK carbon border adjustment mechanisms (CBAMs).

I believe that the extension is necessary to incentivise decarbonisation of the maritime sector. The UK emissions trading scheme's inclusion of the maritime sector has been consulted on extensively and clearly signposted over a number of years. Its introduction is both well trailed and entirely expected by stakeholders and those impacted. Over 200 operators have already registered their details with regulators.

In addition to the immediate changes that maritime participants can make in relation to their operating practice, decarbonisation efforts will be supported by £448 million of funding that will be made available by the UK Government through the UK Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions (SHORE) project. I have secured agreement from the UK Government's Department for Transport to ensure that a Northern Ireland-specific event is held that will drive local engagement on the recently announced additional £271 million boost to shipping and coastal communities. I will continue to work with the UK Government to support the Northern Ireland maritime sector to secure good outcomes from that opportunity.

I am pleased to note the strides that have been made by the industry in decarbonising the maritime sector, such as the introduction of multi-hybrid vessels and proposals to develop shore power. I am encouraged that such innovative advancements are indicative of the sector's commitment and capacity to continue to progress maritime decarbonisation. I am also working closely with the Finance Minister and our respective officials to explore potential fiscal opportunities for Northern Ireland as a result of our participation in emissions trading schemes. Accordingly, I commend the draft Order to the House.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I rise on behalf of the AERA Committee to represent its scrutiny of and decision on the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026. The Committee's scrutiny has been very thorough, over a total of four meetings. I will not be able to do that work full justice today, but other Committee members will add to what I say now.

Our scrutiny began at the Committee's meeting on 15 January 2026, when we considered a notice from DAERA on the laying of the draft SI, together with the proposed amendments to the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020, providing for the expansion of the scope of the UK ETS to include the domestic maritime sector. Minister Muir had given consent for the draft SI to be laid under the draft affirmative resolution procedure as an Order in Council before the Assembly. The draft Order has been approved by the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Senedd and the House of Commons, and we know that the House of Lords will be asked to approve it on 12 March.

Members noted the history of the SI from March 2022, when the UK ETS Authority consulted on amendments to increase the decarbonisation potential of the ETS, including expanding it to the domestic maritime sector. In July 2023, the authority confirmed its intention to proceed, and it consulted on detailed proposals between 28 November 2024 and 23 January 2025, after which it published an interim and main response. Officials were then scheduled to brief us at our meeting on 19 February. However, prior to that date, we received correspondence from Stena Line, highlighting its concerns about impacts for NI businesses and, in particular, the agri-food industry, given its reliance on NI to GB ferry routes.

On 19 February, the Committee held an oral evidence session with DAERA officials, when we heard that the intention to include domestic maritime activities in the UK ETS was to help overcome barriers to decarbonising the sector and strengthen the incentive to adopt low-carbon fuels, fuel-efficient technologies and, indeed, operating practices. Committee members noted that an interim 50% partial exemption from UK ETS obligations will be introduced for routes between Northern Ireland and GB. The future inclusion of international maritime emissions will, thereafter, ensure parity in the Irish Sea and remove the need for a partial exemption. At that point, officials also advised us that certain sectors will be exempted, including vessels in the fishing sector, in order to ensure that NI fishing vessels will not be disadvantaged over those that operate out of Irish ports.

The Committee raised industry concerns that the policy risked acting as a tax on activity, which, in turn, would be passed on to consumers. Officials responded that, based on the available evidence of a low increase in charges, that was the expectation. The stated intent of the policy is to make it more cost-effective for businesses to decarbonise. However, the officials conceded that, as some of the alternatives for decarbonisation are limited in availability at the moment, it might be considered by some to be a tax.

The Committee agreed to invite Stena Line and the UK Chamber of Shipping, which had also contacted us, to give evidence on 5 March. In written correspondence dated 26 February, DAERA advised the Committee that the inclusion of maritime emissions in the UK ETS is essential for linking the scheme with the EU scheme. It also highlighted that the linkage of schemes will remove a barrier to trade and will lower costs for UK exports of goods that are within the scope of the UK CBAM, which are estimated to be worth in the region of £7 billion.

At our meeting on 5 March, the Committee took evidence from Stena Line and the UK Chamber of Shipping. The Committee heard that the shipping industry supports decarbonisation and has invested heavily in new technologies but that the Order would damage Northern Ireland transport businesses in particular. In the words of the representatives, it would guarantee ETS costs for Northern Ireland from 1 July 2026, with no guarantee that either EU or UK CBAM burdens will be avoided in 2027. The Committee heard further industry concerns that included no examination of NI-specific economic impacts and estimates of passenger fare rises of up to 15% and fuel rises of up to 30%, which will damage competitiveness, with the 50% reduction viewed as being insufficient. They also highlighted a lack of access to the technologies needed to cut emissions, such as shore power, and said that biofuel is four times more expensive than the fuel that is used currently. The shipping industry called for a 12-month delay in implementation and for a three-year phased introduction, and representatives said that Northern Ireland should be given an exemption similar to that for the Scottish islands.

At our meeting on 5 March, the Minister briefed us on the DAERA corporate plan for 2025-27, and we took the opportunity to raise the issue of the ETS with him. He stated that the Order is essential for linking the EU ETS and the UK ETS, which will limit the impacts of CBAM and bring substantial cost benefits to Northern Ireland businesses. The Committee agreed to take more time to consider the evidence, and we met DAERA officials yesterday. Procedurally, we did feel under pressure, as, although we have had a considerable amount of evidence to look at and work through, the draft SI did come to us rather late. That was not the fault of the Minister or the Department. We are also aware that the Sewel convention does not apply in this case and that, if it is not agreed by the Assembly, the draft SI will not be made in any other UK jurisdiction.

Officials highlighted several matters, including the importance of the negotiations on the linkage of the UK ETS and the EU ETS, which is dependent on the inclusion of the domestic maritime sector. They also cited the economic impact from CBAM that will potentially arise from the failure to achieve that linkage. They also noted that securing the 50% partial exemption for NI-GB routes was a significant concession achieved during the Minister's negotiations with the UK ETS Authority and said that, if ferry services to Rathlin Island or the Strangford ferry were brought within the scope of the Order, DAERA would seek exemptions at that time for what are termed lifeline services.

Members raised a number of issues, including that the UK ETS may operate as a carbon tax. Officials responded that, although the revenue generated will not be used to incentivise decarbonisation, other funding is available, such as funding from the Department for Transport's SHORE programme, from which over £200 million has already invested in order to address maritime emissions. On the point about a delayed or phased introduction, officials responded that no discussions with the UK ETS Authority had taken place and that DAERA had not been aware of such concerns from the shipping industry until very recently.

Before I make a few brief points as the Ulster Unionist Party spokesperson, I will conclude my remarks as Chairperson of the Committee. The Question was put to the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs that it had considered the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026 and that it was content to support the SI as drafted. The Committee divided, and there were five votes in favour and four against. The Ayes were Declan McAleer, John Blair, Aoife Finnegan, Áine Murphy and Daniel McCrossan, while the Noes were Robbie Butler, Tom Buchanan, Michelle McIlveen and Gareth Wilson. In conclusion, I hope that Committee members feel that I have covered the extent of our scrutiny. The majority of the Committee therefore agreed to recommend that the draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026 be approved by the Assembly.

I will take a few moments to make a few remarks in my capacity as my party's spokesperson on such matters. The Ulster Unionist Party strongly opposes the proposed extension of the emissions trading scheme to domestic maritime activities. We do so because Northern Ireland relies more heavily on maritime connectivity than any other region across the UK does. Around 90% of trade and passenger movements take place on our ferries and shipping routes. Those are not optional links. Rather, they are essential as an economic lifeline, yet the draft Order has failed to assess properly the unique impact and circumstances that the policy will have on communities in Northern Ireland. There is a glaring absence of Northern Ireland-specific data outlining the financial consequences for our businesses and the knock-on effect for our consumers. Even more concerning is the uncertainty around the carbon border adjustment mechanism exemption. Once again, we are being asked to accept vague assurances from a Government whilst the real economic risks remain unquantified: that is fact.

Let us be clear about what the measure represents: in practice, it is a carbon tax. Revenue raised through the scheme will not be reinvested in Northern Ireland, directly into decarbonising our maritime sector or supporting operators to transition to cleaner technologies. If that link had been absolute and indisputable, there would have been agreement, but, unfortunately, it is not there. We should have learned by now the consequences of excluding Northern Ireland's voice from critical negotiations between London and Brussels. Instead, this proposal risks placing further pressure on our businesses, supply chains, economy and consumers, many of whom are already grappling with the lasting effects of a Brexit settlement that fractured our internal market. For those reasons, the Ulster Unionist Party will not be supporting the SI.

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion to extend the emissions trading scheme to maritime activities.

Climate change remains one of the defining challenges of our time. The scientific evidence is clear, and the consequences of inaction are increasingly visible in extreme weather events, the pressures on the natural environment and the growing risks faced by future generations. Shipping, like all sectors of our economy, must play its part in reducing carbon emissions. Extending the emissions trading scheme to maritime transport is, therefore, an important step in supporting carbon reduction across the sector and ensuring that responsibility for tackling emissions is shared fairly.

While we support the principle behind the measure, it is essential that climate action and carbon reduction are delivered in a way that is fair, balanced and workable for the industry. That means applying the principles of just transition. In preparing for such measures, it is important that we listen carefully to those who will be affected most directly, including the ferry industry, manufacturers and other industries that rely on cargo being shipped as part of their business. With that in mind, there is an onus on the AERA Minister and the British Government to work with the industry as the changes come into effect and, where possible, consider whether mitigations could assist implementation. I am glad to see that some mitigations have already been factored in through the measures for goods imported across the Irish Sea.

While the challenges facing businesses as part of the changes remain, doing nothing is simply not an option. Failure to implement the ETS would result in the costs being incurred through the carbon border adjustment mechanism. Whilst some in the House would like to bury their heads in the sand in respect of climate change, Sinn Féin continues to show leadership, and that is why we will support the implementation of the ETS, as we have supported other schemes in the past. We will continue to engage constructively and ensure that climate action is based on just transition so that workers, families and businesses can be supported to reduce their climate emissions in order to help us to meet our targets.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

There is much talk in the media and other places, including from Members, about the lack of legislation coming through the Chamber. No focus is placed on or thought given to the hours of scrutiny in Committees weekly, and in particular to the importance of statutory instruments. Delegated legislation that brings the provisions of Acts into force, and that creates detailed laws and orders, essentially puts flesh on the bones of primary legislation. This is the devil in the detail — the legislation that changes citizens' lives.

Scrutiny of SIs, or the lack thereof, has been a bugbear of mine. Until this year, there was no mechanism for Committees to formally seek views outside what was presented by the relevant Departments.

Having that ability in relation to this Order has been enlightening. As the Chair has outlined, having heard from the Department on 19 February, when all parties bar Alliance raised concerns, we agreed to hear from Stena and the UK Chamber of Shipping. Last Thursday, we heard an incredibly detailed and considered presentation from both organisations. So convincing were their arguments that the United Kingdom Government (UKG) clearly believed that the Committee was going to oppose the Order.

What happened was, frankly, disgraceful. Last-minute pressure was placed on parties by UKG. A new dimension associated with CBAM and impact on EU negotiations was introduced. No facts, detail or proper briefing, just smoke and mirrors. That is not the way that we should do our politics, and interference at such a late stage is highly suspicious. What is interesting about all this is the fact that Sinn Féin and the SDLP folded under a threat from the British Government.

Setting the process aside, let us look at the proposed extension of the UK emissions trading scheme to maritime transport and the significant concerns that it raises for Northern Ireland. It is clear from our discussions that the maritime sector supports decarbonisation and is already investing heavily in cleaner vessels and technologies. It is a sector that works on small margins, so managing time and fuel is essential. However, in its current form, the proposal risks imposing additional costs on trade between Northern Ireland and Great Britain without delivering meaningful emission reductions. Given Northern Ireland's structural reliance on maritime transport, the policy will disproportionately affect local businesses and households.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for giving way. She raises the spectre of the impact on businesses. Does she agree that there was absolutely no quantification of a reduction in carbon through discharge?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I agree with the Member's comments, and that was clear in our considerations.

At a time when cost-of-living pressures remain severe, it is reasonable for us to ask whether the proposal is properly designed, adequately evidenced or sufficiently adapted to Northern Ireland's circumstances. In practical terms, the scheme risks functioning less as a decarbonisation mechanism and more as a tax on trade across the Irish Sea.

Why does this matter so much to Northern Ireland? It matters because Northern Ireland is uniquely dependent on maritime connectivity. As the Chair said, around 90% of goods entering or leaving Northern Ireland move by sea. For many businesses trading with Great Britain, ferry services are not just one option among several; they are the only route to market.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. She makes a valid point. It is interesting that Sinn Féin seems to have bent the knee to UK Government pressure in this regard. Does she agree that the potential 6% increase in haulier costs to Northern Ireland from GB places additional pressure on a sector that has already been hammered by arrangements that were supported by Alliance, the SDLP and Sinn Féin?

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the Member for his intervention.

Those routes underpin agri-food exports and chilled supply chains; manufacturing inputs and just-in-time logistics; supermarket and retail distribution; construction supply chains; and tourism and passenger connectivity. As a result, any increase in maritime operating costs flows directly through the entire Northern Ireland economy. Initial estimates suggest that ETS compliance could increase freight costs by around £15 per trailer, equivalent to roughly a 6% increase in average freight costs. Those costs will not simply remain with shipping operators. They will ultimately be passed on via higher export costs for Northern Ireland businesses, including our haulage firms, increased supply chain costs and higher prices for consumers. DAERA has downplayed those costs. However, the MLAs who are concerned about household budgets — we hear daily about food prices and economic competitiveness — should be concerned about freight costs too. We hear calls from the parties opposite for intervention on the soaring price of fuel at the pumps and the rocketing cost of home heating oil. The Treasury Minister is meeting MPs to explore further action about the unique challenges facing households that use heating oil, but what about the unique circumstances facing Northern Ireland in respect of the Order? In this instance, it seems to be perfectly acceptable to add a further tax from July this year to our customers.

The question is whether the specific policy will drive decarbonisation or simply add costs without enabling change. At present, alternative fuels remain extremely limited and cost up to four times more than conventional maritime fuel, and shoreside electricity infrastructure is largely unavailable across UK ports. This will require considerable investment. Yet, despite the additional revenue being proposed, there is no guaranteed mechanism to reinvest ETS revenues into maritime transition infrastructure. Without those enabling measures, the policy risks raising costs without reducing emissions. As Daniel McCrossan noted during the Committee's discussion on Thursday, it risks putting the cart before the horse.

On a specific economic impact assessment to look at the GB-NI route, DAERA officials have suggested that the impact on Northern Ireland has already been assessed. However, the available evidence raises significant questions. The Frontier Economics study that is often cited was commissioned in 2023 by Whitehall Departments, not DAERA, and does not take into account many of the current market developments. It mentions Northern Ireland only six times and provides no quantified estimates of the impacts on Northern Ireland's consumers or businesses. It also uses examples such as cruise shipping rather than analysing the full implications for NI-GB freight routes. While the UK Government's analysis acknowledges that Northern Ireland is more exposed to cost transmission through maritime freight, it does not quantify the real economic consequences for Northern Ireland households or businesses. That raises a reasonable question: why has no dedicated Northern Ireland economic impact assessment been commissioned for a policy with such obvious regional implications?

Officials have also suggested that, if Northern Ireland does not adopt the ETS maritime extension, the costs arising from the CBAM could be higher, but there are problems with that argument. First, CBAM is not contained in the statutory instrument and does not apply directly to shipping; secondly, there is clearly no quantified estimate of CBAM costs for Northern Ireland; thirdly, Northern Ireland operates in a complex regulatory environment; and finally, if ETS-CBAM alignment becomes relevant in the future, that does not mean that the current policy design is correct. What evidence supports the claim that CBAM costs would exceed ETS costs? What modelling has been undertaken specifically for Northern Ireland? What would UK CBAM costs be in any scenario? Without transparent evidence, the CBAM argument remains an assertion rather than a demonstrated fact.

We now turn to the Scottish exemption. The UK Government have already recognised that some maritime routes face disproportionate impacts. That is why the Scottish island communities have rightly received exemptions. No wonder Scotland voted for this: it is protected through those exemptions. Their existence demonstrates that flexibility is possible within the policy framework. It is not unreasonable to ask why a similar case was not advanced for Northern Ireland, given its complete reliance on maritime transport. Northern Ireland's circumstances, I argue, make it even more structurally dependent on ferry connectivity than many places served by Scottish routes. The Minister referenced the fact that other regions have supported this, but we know that Scotland has an exemption, that Wales has no domestic ferries and that Labour has a majority in the Commons. Why would they object?

We are aware that this is under review by the EU, as member states already affected are unhappy. We are also aware that the rules of the game will be changed again when the Order is reviewed in 2028. At that point, the tonnage is likely to be changed to incorporate ferries over 400 tons, which will include one of the Strangford ferries. What will that mean for DFI and for the passengers who use it daily? What other changes will come about as a result of the impending review?

Despite the uncertainty surrounding the proposal, we have limited options under Assembly procedure. A statutory instrument cannot be amended; Members can either approve it or reject it. However, given that serious concerns remain about economic impact, policy design, evidence gaps and regional fairness, there is a strong argument that the Assembly should ask Westminster to reconsider the proposal. It is my understanding that Ministers in Westminster are openly discussing a new statutory instrument that would address our concerns. Stena and the UK Chamber of Shipping have asked for reasonable adjustments: a 12-month delay to allow them to prepare; a Northern Ireland-specific economic assessment; a phased introduction period; and the targeting of ETS revenues towards maritime decarbonisation.

If we are unhappy with the lack of an exemption for Northern Ireland that is similar to that for Scotland, if there are concerns about the economic impact on Northern Ireland consumers, if we are unclear about the CBAM argument, if there are clear competitiveness concerns and if there is no clear decarbonisation pathway in place, is it responsible to proceed? Is it more prudent to ask Westminster to come back with a revised proposal that properly reflects Northern Ireland's economic realities and amends the legislation to take account of our reasonable concerns? If the answer to all of that is yes, that should be reflected in how we vote today. There is no reason why the legislation cannot be amended so that Northern Ireland is treated in exactly the same way as Scotland; it just requires the will of the Assembly.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the draft Order, which aims to decarbonise the maritime sector. I thank the AERA Minister for presenting the Order and for his ongoing and significant engagement with the UK Government. I appreciate the support provided by departmental officials to the AERA Committee, and I thank the stakeholders who shared their views with the Committee.

Ultimately, Alliance views the Order as a significant declaration of intent by the United Kingdom domestically and internationally. It shows a strong commitment to climate action in a sector that has traditionally been more difficult to regulate and decarbonise. Emissions trading schemes such as the one being discussed today are a proven tool in driving down carbon emissions. By placing a cost on emissions within a cap-and-trade model, they create a long-term price signal that incentivises sectors to innovate, invest and cut their carbon footprint.

In simple terms, the more that you pollute, the more that you pay, and the more that you will save by cutting emissions. We must embed that logic across our economy if we are serious about meeting climate targets, which, I remind Members, are legally binding.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Member give way?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I will give way briefly, but I am keen to make progress.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I think that the Member and I are on the same page in that regard, but does he not accept that, given the failure to be able to provide power to ships at the dockside and that biomethane is four times as expensive, this is not an incentive to decarbonise, which is what everybody wants; it is simply a carbon tax?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I will come shortly to levies and investment in the sector, which, as I am sure that the Chair will admit, were not represented in his report.

It should be noted that some ferry operators already include an environmental fee in fare charges. There is no doubt that that will have helped already in decarbonisation efforts. The principle is not new. I am intrigued as to why the report from the Chair, and, therefore, the Committee, did not reflect any of that. I will be blunt: two of the three shades of the TUV have spoken already and have chosen to ignore that, just as they chose to ignore CBI opinion, which was also offered to the Committee.

Since Brexit, the UK and the EU have operated separate emissions trading schemes. However, the decision last year by the EU and UK to begin negotiations to link the schemes is very positive. That has long been called for by Alliance, very specifically in our recent 'Stronger Together' document. From an environmental perspective, linked systems can reduce carbon leakage, stabilise carbon prices and create clearer incentives for decarbonisation across these islands and throughout Europe. The inclusion of maritime emissions in the UK ETS is essential for linking the UK and EU schemes. That linkage will also facilitate an exemption from the EU carbon border adjustment mechanism — as was pointed out, there is more detail on that to come — removing a major barrier to trade and lowering costs for UK businesses.

If the instrument does not pass at the Assembly today, it will fall everywhere. The Order in Council cannot be made without the agreement of all the UK Administrations. Therefore, this is not only a local environmental measure; it is a decision with clear UK-wide implications. In real terms, that has consequences. It also affects parity on the Irish Sea. If we fail to pass the Order, there is a real risk of businesses rerouting via the Republic of Ireland to avoid additional costs in the future, which would undermine our economy and our environmental goals by shifting, rather than reducing, emissions.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Member give way?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Not at this stage, no.

Therefore, the Order helps to protect Northern Ireland from the economic impacts of divergent ETS regimes between the UK and the EU while embedding the principle that maritime emissions must be accounted for and reduced. Such initiatives are vital if the UK is to meet its climate commitments. They safeguard our natural resources and ecosystems while strengthening our economy, creating opportunities for growth and innovation, and keeping us in line with other leading economies.

Alliance supports the direction represented by the Order and will continue to work for a future in which Northern Ireland is at the forefront of climate action and green innovation, not playing catch-up.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

When people hear the phrase "emissions trading scheme", most will switch off. It sounds really technical and not related to everyday life, but such decisions are not abstract; they are about our economy and our trade. Ultimately, they are about opportunities and costs facing people and businesses here in Northern Ireland. Ultimately, the emissions trading scheme is a market tool. It places cost on pollution and allows businesses to innovate and compete to reduce emissions. Those who invest in cleaner technology benefit, and those who do not face increased costs. Over time, that creates incentives for innovation, efficiency and investment in new technologies.

For us, however, the most important issue in the debate is not the climate policy, although that is vital. Rather, it is how such decisions affect our economy and our unique trading position. Northern Ireland sits in a distinctive place, between two major markets. We have access to the UK internal market and to the EU single market. That dual market access gives us a real economic advantage. At the minute, it is growing our economy at more than twice the rate of that of the rest of the UK. That creates opportunities and generates investment. It supports trade and grows better jobs and opportunities for the people who are listening to the debate. It also means, however, that we must think carefully about how regulatory systems interact across those two markets. When systems diverge, there is a risk of businesses facing unnecessary complexity or of trade routes starting to shift in ways that disadvantage us. That is why the provisions, which relate to maritime emissions, are really important.

Maritime emissions have been within the scope of the EU emissions trading system since 2024. The system covers 100% of emissions generated from voyages between EU ports and 50% of emissions generated from voyages that start or end in the EU. Applying a 50% reduction to the UK ETS surrender obligations on voyages between Northern Ireland and GB, rather than requiring 100% surrender, will ensure fairness and parity with EU ETS carbon pricing across the Irish Sea and avoid the risk of competitive distortion locally. If that approach were not to be taken here, routes between Northern Ireland and GB could be faced with different carbon costs from routes between here and ports in the South. That would create an unintended distortion and encourage operators to reroute goods through Dublin port simply to avoid paying higher costs. That would not be good for Northern Ireland's ports, for its logistics sector or for the wider economy here. The approach that is taken in the draft Order avoids that risk. Applying the same 50% emissions coverage for Northern Ireland to GB routes will maintain parity across the Irish Sea and ensure that our ports are not placed at a competitive disadvantage. That is an important safeguard for a region where the economy depends so heavily on trade and connectivity. We live on an island and depend on shipping.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. At least he has the bravery to do so, unlike his colleague from South Antrim.

The Member said that the draft Order protects Northern Ireland hauliers and consumers, yet the evidence, including in representations from said hauliers, shows that it will damage their business model in Northern Ireland and add 6% to their costs. The Member for Strangford Miss McIlveen referred to the exemptions that the Scottish Government were able to secure for the Scottish islands. Is the Member aware of any such exemptions being sought by the Minister of Agriculture?

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Jonny, you know that I will always let you in. I hope that that will be reciprocated. I will proceed with my contribution, but I will cover what you asked in a second. This is about economics, divergence and everything else. We dealt in Committee with the issue that you raised, and I will answer you as I go on.

Carbon pricing is increasingly one of the rules of international trade. The European Union's carbon border adjustment mechanism will apply charges on imports from countries without comparable carbon pricing. That means that alignment between carbon-pricing systems can reduce barriers for exporters, thus making it easier for businesses to trade. For a trading region such as Northern Ireland, that really matters. Linking the EU ETS and the UK ETS would reduce friction for exporters, provide greater certainty for businesses and support stable trading relationships across these islands.

The debate should be about not just compliance but opportunity. The maritime sector is undergoing a major technological transformation as it moves to using cleaner fuels and having more efficient vessels. Shipping companies around the world are investing in hybrid vessels, in methanol engines and in hydrogen fuel. That gives us major research and development opportunities to grow new technologies and skills locally. Ports are investing in shore power so that ships can plug into electricity while they are docked, rather than having to run their engines.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for giving way. His are the same points that his colleague from South Antrim made. We are not against decarbonisation, but the SI will not generate a cent or farthing for the Northern Ireland maritime contingent from decarbonisation. The fact that we will not be able to get shore power for probably the next 10 years means that this is simply a tax, unless the Member has something up his sleeve by which we will expedite getting onshore power and cheaper fuel so that the ships that are able to run on such fuels can do so.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Robbie, honestly: if you mention the word "EU" and the word "Ireland" —

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Answer the question.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

— three parties simply go against it.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Answer the question.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

We did not even need to read the thing —

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Answer the question.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

— to see where you were going. If we were to wait for —.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Gentlemen, stop barracking back and forth. My hearing is not quite up to it. I want to hear Mr Honeyford. Mr Butler, if you want to make another intervention, I have no doubt that Mr Honeyford will be very happy to take it.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

You are making my decision for me, Mr Deputy Speaker.

[Laughter.]

Thank you for that.

If we wait for everything to be in place before we change anything, nothing will ever change. You have to move. If pushing people brings that change, so be it.

Belfast harbour has invested in shore power. We have seen investment in the harbour. It was recently announced that it will invest in a cruise and offshore wind terminal. Companies such as Stena are investing in hybrid vessels and new technologies to improve efficiencies. Those are exactly the kinds of innovations that will shape the future of maritime transport if we position ourselves well. In Northern Ireland, we have an engineering heritage. We have advanced manufacturing capabilities and a thriving industry. We have huge research and development capabilities and brilliant universities. We have strategic ports. We can play a major part in the transition.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Yes. I am happy to.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Does the Member agree that there are examples in Northern Ireland of the decarbonisation of maritime transport, one of which is Artemis Technologies? We have to be conscious of the fact that decarbonisation can and should be done.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for his intervention. That example is beside his constituency. Research and development is happening, as is investment. Jobs are reliant on that, and jobs are being created in those areas. There are so many opportunities for us in the maritime sector here.

Some Members may suggest that such policies somehow undermine our economy; I take a completely different view. The real risk to our economy is in ignoring the direction of global markets, burying our heads in the sand and pretending that nothing is changing and that we can control everybody else. That would leave Northern Ireland unprepared for the changes that are already under way. The real risk is pretending that the global economy is not already changing. The countries and regions that succeed will be those that adapt, innovate and position themselves for the industries of the future. For Northern Ireland, that means making practical decisions to protect our competitiveness, support our ports and ensure that our economy continues to benefit from trade and investment.

The Order helps to achieve that. It is not about choosing between the UK or the EU; it is about making sure that Northern Ireland's economy works in both markets and benefits from both. The Order protects Northern Ireland from unnecessary distortion across the Irish Sea, supports the competitiveness of our ports and positions our economy to take advantage of the transition that is taking place in maritime transport. Ultimately, the goal should always be the same: we bring forward practical policies that strengthen our economy, support jobs, create more jobs and build a more secure and prosperous future for everyone here and the people who call this place home.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

On the face of it, Members may be tempted to see the Order as a routine environmental measure. I can already hear the green welly brigade chime, "One small step for mankind, one more technical step in the pursuit of decarbonisation". However, when one examines the detail of what the Order means and, more importantly, the consequences for Northern Ireland, it becomes clear that it is anything but routine.

The proposal risks imposing significant new costs on Northern Ireland businesses and consumers while delivering no environmental benefit. Worse still, it does so in a way that treats Northern Ireland differently from other parts of the United Kingdom. That is the sole reason that we see the nationalist and republican alliance once again coming together. Northern Ireland is uniquely exposed to measures of this kind. For many businesses that trade with Great Britain, maritime transport is not simply one logistical option amongst many; it is the only viable route to market.

Our supermarkets depend on it; our manufacturers depend on it; and our agri-food sector depends on it. The everyday functioning of our economy depends on reliable and affordable maritime links with Great Britain. Therefore, when additional costs are placed on those routes, they do not sit in isolation. They flow through the entire supply chain. They affect exporters selling into Great Britain, businesses importing components and goods from Great Britain and, ultimately, the price paid by the consumer.

The maritime sector has warned that compliance with the extension of the ETS could add around £1·10 per freight metre. That works out at roughly £15 per trailer. That may not sound dramatic in isolation, but, across thousands upon thousands of freight movements every week, it quickly becomes a substantial additional burden. Industry estimates that it could lead to an increase in freight costs of around 6%. Every one of those costs will inevitably find its way into the wider economy.

Members will hear this defended as an essential environmental policy, but the central difficulty with that argument is this: the mechanism that is being imposed cannot change behaviour in the way in which environmental policy is supposed to. Normally, a carbon tax works by encouraging people to switch from a more polluting option to a cleaner alternative, but that logic works only where a viable alternative exists. In the case of maritime transport serving Northern Ireland, that alternative does not exist. What happens when you impose a carbon cost in those circumstances? It does not drive behavioural change but simply adds cost. Therefore, what is being proposed is not an environmental instrument; it is a tax on trade and a tax on people's connections through personal travel.

Even if Members were prepared to overlook those problems, there is a second issue that is even more troubling. The Government have already recognised that maritime routes can face disproportionate impacts. That is why ferry services serving the Scottish islands have been granted an exemption. The Government accepted the argument that imposing costs on those routes would unfairly burden island communities. That is a perfectly reasonable position, but here is the difficulty: Northern Ireland depends on maritime connectivity as well but receives no equivalent exemption. We hear the Minister talk about the 50% partial exemption that he has secured, while the Scottish islands get 100% exemption until 2028. Why are ferry routes that are servicing Scottish islands exempt from the costs, while ferry routes servicing Northern Ireland are not? When the issue has been raised with officials, the explanation offered is striking: the Scottish Government, we are told, lobbied hard. That raises uncomfortable questions. Why did the Northern Ireland Executive not do the same? Why should businesses in Northern Ireland face costs that ferry services to Scotland's island communities do not? Why should our constituents be placed at a competitive disadvantage simply because our Executive failed to make the case for the businesses?

We are also told that Members should support the Order because rejecting it might somehow jeopardise discussions between the United Kingdom and the European Union regarding emissions trading schemes or carbon border adjustment mechanisms. That argument simply does not stand up to scrutiny. Voting against this version of the Order does not bring maritime decarbonisation to an end. It does not dismantle the UK ETS. It does not prevent further and future alignment with European systems. If that were the direction of travel that we wanted to take, it does not go against it. All that it does is require the Government to return with a better drafted and fairer version of the regulations.

The solution is remarkably simple. The Government could withdraw the Order, amend a small number of words so that Northern Ireland receives the same exemption as has been granted to Scotland and then reintroduce the measure in revised form. That happens frequently with secondary legislation. When drafting errors occur or policy flaws are identified, the Government correct them and bring forward a revised statutory instrument. There is nothing extraordinary about that, and doing so would cause no real delay. The Government could table revised regulations within days, so the idea that rejecting the Order today will somehow jeopardise further and wider ETS arrangements simply does not stand up. What would be extraordinary is for the House to knowingly pass legislation that treats Northern Ireland worse than other parts of the United Kingdom.

At the end of the day, the question before Members is simple: are we prepared to support a measure that will increase costs for Northern Ireland businesses and consumers, offers no environmental benefit and treats Northern Ireland less favourably than Scotland? If this discriminatory version of the Order passes, it will not be because there was no alternative; it will be because Members chose not to insist on fair treatment for the people whom they represent. Members should reflect carefully on that, because the issue has already been examined at the Committee. Members know how their parties voted there, so the question today is straightforward: why would anyone vote to pass a flawed version of the regulations when they could simply reject it and ask the Government to come back within days with a version that does not discriminate against Northern Ireland vis-à-vis Scotland?

It is not acceptable for Northern Ireland to be treated as an afterthought in UK policymaking. It is not acceptable to add cost to the supply chains on which our economy depends. It is not acceptable to impose a policy that places Northern Ireland at a competitive disadvantage in its national market. For those reasons, I cannot support the Order in its present form, and I urge other Members to vote against it and require the Government to come back with regulations that treat Northern Ireland fairly.

My last comments will be from the director of TST Group, who has been in touch. If Members do not want to take my word for it, they should listen to what he has to say. TST contacted us, concerned about the disproportionate impact that the proposal will have on Northern Ireland businesses and supply chains. He said:

"Northern Ireland is uniquely dependent on maritime transport. Approximately 90% of goods entering Great Britain move via ferry routes from Great Britain. Unlike businesses based in Great Britain, Northern Ireland companies cannot avoid these additional transport costs. Within the logistics sector, typically it operates on around 1% to 3% of a margin. A cost increase of approximately 6% in freight movements is therefore extremely significant. Ultimately, that will lead in to higher prices for businesses and consumers here in Northern Ireland."

The House has a clear choice to make. There is a better and more cost-effective way for business. We should reject the Order today, and the Government should return with a better offer for Northern Ireland.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

In making a winding-up speech on the debate, I will try to cover a couple of the points that have been raised. The Department has kept the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs updated on the maritime ETS. On 27 November 2024, the Committee was informed of the UK ETS scope expansion consultation in respect of the maritime sector. On 18 July last year, the Committee was advised about the interim consultation response. On 25 November, it was advised of the main consultation response and publication of the UK ETS international maritime consultation. Officials have also engaged with the Committee this month and last month. There has been engagement on this. The issue has been discussed for a long period. It should come as no surprise that it has come to the Assembly today.

As has been outlined previously, if the instrument is not passed by the Assembly, it falls everywhere. The Order in Council cannot be made without the agreement of all UK Administrations. We need to be conscious —.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Minister give way?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I will happily give way, yes.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

The Minister said that "it falls everywhere", but does he accept my argument that the UK Government could bring back an improved offer for Northern Ireland that does not discriminate against us, using the Scottish model that is already built into the legislation? Why should we be treated differently from the Scots?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I will address the Scottish model in my comments

When it comes to being a driver of decarbonisation, this policy is about cutting emissions and getting the incentives to drive investment in a cleaner economy. The scheme drives the market to reduce emissions where that is most cost-effective without prescribing specific technologies in any sector. For maritime operators, the scheme provides a clear price signal that supports investment in cleaner vessels, operational efficiency, emerging low-carbon fuels and modern wind propulsion. We have seen that, for example, in the Stena Line ships that have recently been deployed and the fact that shore power will be deployed in Heysham this year. The UK ETS will work alongside other policies that, together, will deliver decarbonisation of the sector. We see the impacts in terms of fuel prices and the need to decarbonise across society.

The Government will continue to work with industry to support the development of the infrastructure and technologies that are needed to facilitate decarbonisation. The emissions trading scheme has a proven track record of supporting decarbonisation across high-emitting sectors. There has been a 55% reduction in emissions in the trading sector alone.

With regard to the associated impacts associated, I will address a number of the points that were raised and how those impacts were considered. A full impact assessment that considered the impacts on the whole of the UK, including Northern Ireland, was published alongside the main authority response in November 2025. At my Department's request, the UK ETS Authority also undertook additional internal analysis during policy development to understand the potential impacts on Northern Ireland. The analysis shows that the impact is expected to be minor. The analysis suggests that the additional cost on Northern Ireland imports could be equivalent to 6p per ton of agricultural feedstocks, such as barley, and less than a penny per litre of fuel. That is expected to lead to an increase of less than 1% in the final prices of those case-study goods.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

Will the Minister give way?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Yes.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

On that point, you are absolutely accurate about the wording: it says "suggests" and "expected". We want certainty when we legislate. To use the words "suggests" and "expected" suggests that those figures are a moveable feast, particularly the one penny or more on fuel, given the current geopolitical situation and the rise in oil and fuel costs. Does the Minister accept that that is not set in concrete?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I can give you certainty on two things: the reality of climate change and the impact that it is having in Northern Ireland and more broadly and the fact of our reliance on fossil fuels. We see that playing out today in how the conflict in the Middle East has increased the price of fuel and will push more people into fuel poverty. That is why we need to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels. The analysis that I have set out was based on a full cost pass-through worst-case scenario. Therefore, the actual cost impact could be much less.

The outcome of the impact assessment is supported by the emerging analysis that has been completed on the EU scheme, which is already in place, and indicates that there will be minimal impact. Analysis from the EU shows that, in real terms, it could increase the price of a pair of shoes by a maximum of 80 cents, a banana by 0·8 cents and a TV by 10 cents. There is a clear understanding that this has already been introduced by the European Union, analysis has been undertaken on it and there are options for decarbonisation.

It is important that we address the decarbonisation options. I am pleased to note the strides being made by industry in the decarbonisation of the maritime sector, with ships capable of operating on low-carbon fuels and making use of modern wind propulsion technologies now operating from Belfast. I fully support the plans being made by Belfast Harbour to introduce shore power. I am also pleased to note that £90 million has been made available for projects in Northern Ireland under the UK Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions scheme, including a project to demonstrate a fully electric crew transfer vessel in Belfast harbour and feasibility studies for a zero emissions shipping corridor between Northern Ireland and England, involving trials at Larne harbour.

In addition, Belfast Harbour Commissioners has recently concluded a public consultation on its draft master plan, with the final master plan due to be published in May. It aims to invest in shore power and to support partners to decarbonise. I am fully supportive of the commitments to sustainability made by Belfast Harbour Commissioners in the draft master plan. I met its representatives last week in regard to that and, in particular, to their proposals to develop shore power, and I am pleased to note that a tender process has already commenced.

In the short term, operators can reduce their ETS costs through fuel efficiencies. The ETS also means that operators can choose the lowest-cost way for them to invest in decarbonisation. It does not mandate specific technologies. Northern Ireland operators can approach decarbonisation through efficiency upgrades and new technologies or by whatever means they deem appropriate for their own circumstances.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I appreciate the Minister giving away. I will listen with interest when he talks later about why Northern Ireland should not get the same exemptions as Scotland. Minister, you talk about feasibility studies and planned interventions, and the Member for Lagan Valley beside you often talks about delays in feasibility studies here in Northern Ireland. The increase in taxes will be introduced in July, but the buy-off for that is that there will be a feasibility study. That will be years down the line, but customers will be paying the bills from July.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I will seek to address that. The Committee has been briefed on that. The situation will come into place, but there will be a phased implementation of ETS, and people need to be aware of that.

I will finish my point about decarbonisation. I am pleased to note that Stena is now operating its groundbreaking Stena Futura vessel, which is the first roll-on roll-off ship equipped with multi-hybrid solutions, enabling it to operate on battery power, biofuel and methanol and to utilise battery propulsion and shore power when available. It currently operates on the Belfast to Heysham route. Stena has also launched the Stena Connecta, which uses a multi-hybrid propulsion system, enabling the use of battery power, biofuel and methanol. Uniquely, the Stena Futura has two rotor sails designed to enhance energy efficiency and deliver fuel savings. Stena Connecta also operates between Belfast and Heysham. As my colleague Mr Blair outlined, Stena Line currently charges environmental fees. I have looked those up, and we need to be conscious of that.

On the issue of the Scottish ferries, we all know that the situation that applies to Northern Ireland is different. Northern Ireland is much larger than the Scottish islands. We secured a 50% exemption for Northern Ireland. The ferry for the Isle of Wight, which, as far as I am aware, is part of the United Kingdom, will have to pay 100%. Therefore, a dispensation has been given to Northern Ireland. We all know that it is currently 50% between GB and the Republic of Ireland. If that is not in place, there is a risk that gaming could occur, and I have set out the situation in that regard.

With regard to previous debates on the issue in another place, the Rathlin Island ferry is not included in the scope. If there is a review in the time ahead, it will be important to have two things: the first is a sitting Assembly so that we can scrutinise it; the second is having Ministers in post so that we can make our case as the situation is reviewed in the time ahead. I am very clear that the Rathlin Island ferry is a lifeline ferry and should have an exemption, as has already been set out.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Minister give way?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Yes, no problem.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

As I outlined, approximately 90% of goods entering Northern Ireland come here via ferry routes. The Scottish exemption is 100%. You are bumming up and talking about how good it is to have an Assembly and Ministers in place.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Mr Gaston.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

What have you done —

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Mr Gaston.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— to deliver a 100% exemption —

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Mr Gaston.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— for Northern Ireland?

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

Mr Gaston, language, please. We do not use words such as that in the Chamber, or, at least, if we do use them, we get caught out for it. The Minister can choose to answer that if he wishes.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is important that, when we are debating things, we use appropriate language in this place. It is important that you set that out.

I have set out the situation with regard to the 50% exemption that was secured. It is much better than the situation with the Isle of Wight. A wider issue has to be considered, which is the situation regarding the linking between the UK and EU ETS. We need to be conscious of that.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

Will the Minister give way?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I want to make a bit more progress on how the linkage will come into place.

As is standard with emissions trading schemes, once the linkage is in place, there are arrangements for the surrender of allowances and how those are traded, and that will allow operators to adjust. If the Order is made at the March meeting of the Privy Council, which is set for 1 April 2026, it will come into force the day after, so on 2 April 2026. Operators will not be required to surrender any allowances for the 2026 period, nor will they be required to surrender any allowances for the 2027 period until April 2028, so there is sufficient lead-in time. Operators have been able to access guidance and have been able to register since late last year, with over 200 operators already having registered across the UK. I am happy to take your intervention, Mr Buckley.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for giving way. During the debate, we heard, initially from Miss McIlveen, about the hard-won exemptions that were secured by the Scottish Government for consumers and businesses. The Minister has outlined how there is to be a partial 50% exemption here, compared with the Scottish Government's 100% exemption. We already know that the industry is facing significant challenges on the Irish Sea, with a 6% potential increase in costs projected that will ultimately have to be passed on to the consumer. For what specific exemption percentage did the Minister lobby? His Alliance Party colleagues have not been able to answer that question. Is it the case that he advocated for no further exemption in order to fit his net zero-zealot attitude when it comes to Northern Ireland?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I have outlined the situation with the funding that we have secured to assist us on the decarbonisation journey. I have stated how that links to the wider ambition to join together the UK ETS and the EU ETS, as well as how that links to CBAM. We have to consider those wider issues. It is strange that some people of a unionist persuasion come to the Chamber having not considered the UK's wider ambition to link to the EU ETS. That is something that we need to consider.

Brexit has created lots of challenges in Northern Ireland. As Minister, I am seeking to work through those challenges and find solutions to them. As is often the case when I come here with solutions, there are Members who say that they do not like them, yet they do not offer alternatives. Linking the UK and EU emissions trading schemes offers us clear benefits, and there will be impacts from CBAM if we do not do so. If the CBAM exemption is not achieved, there will likely be a much greater impact, especially for industry, manufacturing and construction, than the inclusion of maritime emissions within the scope of the UK ETS.

The UK ETS maritime legislation will apply only to emissions associated with the transporting of goods by ship. Transport costs are a small component of the final price of goods. Securing a CBAM exemption would remove a major trade barrier for £7 billion of UK exports that are currently within the scope of the EU CBAM. Matching maritime scope is a requirement of linking to the EU ETS and to subsequent EU CBAM exemptions. It would avoid significantly higher costs and admin burden for businesses and consumers in Northern Ireland and across the rest of the United Kingdom. Taking into account the benefit of linking the two emissions trading schemes, combined with the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, the benefit to the UK economy would be almost £9 billion by 2040.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Will the Minister give way?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I want to continue. Matching maritime scope is a requirement for linking to the EU ETS and for mutual CBAM exemptions. We therefore must adopt a wider perspective for the maritime issues in hand. A firm ETS link is the only path to CBAM-free trade between the UK and the EU. Numerous businesses and industrial stakeholders have been calling for alignment between the UK ETS and the EU ETS for some time. In advance of the UK-EU summit on 19 May 2025, a letter calling for the strengthening of UK-EU cooperation through linking the UK ETS and the EU ETS was supported and signed by 52 organisations. Organisations that signed the letter included the CBI, the Northern Ireland Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the British Irish Chamber of Commerce, Energy UK and SSE.

There is a wider issue to be considered. The draft Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (Amendment) (Extension to Maritime Activities) Order 2026 will extend the scope of the UK ETS to include emissions from the domestic maritime sector. That has been well trailed for a number of years. Extensive consultation and engagement has taken place on it.

The UK emissions trading scheme has proven to be one of the most effective tools in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from high-polluting sectors. The Order, if approved, marks a vital next step in developing effective proposals for expansion of UK ETS, increasing the level of emissions that will come under the scheme and helping to shape the future of UK ETS in a way that supports the long-term decarbonisation strategy of both Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom. It will allow the maritime sector to choose the most effective way to reduce emissions, supported with £448 million of UK Government funding through the UK shore programme. As Minister, I will continue to work closely with the Finance Minister and our respective officials to explore potential fiscal opportunities for Northern Ireland as a result of our participation in the emissions trading scheme. There is a significant opportunity here for us to link the UK ETS and EU ETS schemes and address the concerns about CBAM that are often raised with us. I urge Members to look at the broader picture of the challenges that we have faced as a result of Brexit, to focus on solutions and to support the Order.

Question put.

Some Members

Aye.

Some Members

No.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

The Business Committee is scheduled to meet at 1.00 pm, so there is no time to vote through the Lobbies. Accordingly, we will return to the Question and the vote after Question Time. I propose therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 12.57 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions — Communities

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

1. Ms Finnegan asked the Minister for Communities for an update in relation to the review of the Child Maintenance Service. (AQO 3260/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

My Department continues to work closely with DWP to progress reforms to the Child Maintenance Service (CMS), with a particular focus on strengthening compliance and improving enforcement. Following a consultation, secondary legislation will be brought forward to introduce administrative liability orders, reducing current enforcement timescales from around 22 weeks to an estimated six to eight weeks. The necessary legislation is expected to become operational in this calendar year.

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Parents rely on child maintenance to ensure that their children receive the support that they are entitled to. There are concerns, however, that some individuals deliberately avoid making payments or manipulate the system to reduce or evade payments. One example of that is cross-border workers, who are supposed to declare their income but, many times, do not. What measures are in place or are being considered to identify and address cases where the system is being abused, particularly where income may be deliberately under-reported or hidden?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

That is absolutely why the reforms are taking place and the review is being put in place alongside a wider programme of reform to Child Maintenance Service operations. That includes compliance to ensure that children receive the maintenance to which they are entitled. That includes a focus on updating the child maintenance calculation system. That will ensure that any changes support parents and work effectively for CMS customers. If the Member has specific examples of where she believes that that is not working or, more generally, examples of where improvements need to be made, we are open to those because we need a Child Maintenance Service that is effective and does the job that it is meant to do — importantly, making sure that support gets to children.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

It is important that the Child Maintenance Service is fair to parents and children. Will the Minister outline what the improvements will be following the review?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The reforms are intended to improve the service overall to make it more robust and ensure that practices are more efficient at getting support to children through improved enforcement and collection. The reforms are intended to increase compliance and therefore reduce child poverty. There will be better support for victims of domestic abuse with the removal of the direct pay service. We will, of course, ensure that we maintain parity with GB so that there is no discrepancy in service.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

2. Mr Brooks asked the Minister for Communities for an update on his social housing targets, as committed to in the Programme for Government 2024-27. (AQO 3261/22-27)

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

3. Mrs Dodds asked the Minister for Communities to outline any support that he has received from Executive colleagues to ensure that he meets his housebuilding targets. (AQO 3262/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I will answer questions 2 and 3 together.

In their Programme for Government, the Executive committed to a target of starting 5,850 social homes by the end of the mandate. By the end of the financial year, we will, at best, have started 3,250. That leaves around 2,600 social homes required to be started next year to fulfil that commitment. The contribution from other Departments is vital to address whole-system barriers to supply. Examples of that include addressing waste water constraints. My officials are engaging closely with the Department for Infrastructure to unlock capacity for new social homes. I will circulate an action plan to the Executive shortly, and I trust that it will receive their full support.

In some aspects, the support provided by some Executive colleagues has been found wanting, particularly with regard to funding allocated to my Department for social housebuilding. The funding allocations made over the first two years mean that we now have to start 2,600 homes next year. That will be extremely challenging and puts at clear risk the achievement of the Executive's Programme for Government target. That is why I have been pressing for a sufficient budget for social housebuilding to be earmarked in the Budget exercise.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his answer. I also thank him for everything that he is doing to address housing need. I can only hope that other Ministers live up to the promises that their parties like to make in relation to addressing social housing need, so let us see them put their money where their mouth is. How much funding is proposed for the social housing development programme (SHDP) in the draft Budget, and is it aligned with the Programme for Government targets?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The proposed funding for the SHDP is less than half of the total required. We are £128 million short. That means that, even if I devote all the capital proposed for my Department that is not earmarked, I cannot fund the Executive's commitment. In 2026-27, after I deal with my Department's inescapable commitments, I will have only £95 million of non-earmarked capital remaining. From that, I will have to determine how to meet £230 million of high-priority needs, including the £128 million still required for social housing. Therefore, even if I allocate no funding to any other project across my portfolio — urban regeneration, culture, heritage, sport or other housing priorities — I will still have a shortfall of £33 million.

Others say that it is up to me to find the money from within my budget, but it is crystal clear that their priorities do not lie with housing. The draft Budget demonstrates just that.

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Minister, thank you for your answers. You have outlined a severe issue in funding and in whole-Executive cooperation to enable you to do that housebuilding. Do you not find it a bit strange that the Communities Committee, which is chaired by a Sinn Féin MLA, has endorsed the earmarking of funding to meet the Programme for Government commitments but that Sinn Féin in the Executive has not?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I do. I welcome the fact that the Committee has made that move and recognised the need for us to meet our target. To do that, we need to have the budget and make sure that it is properly earmarked for that.

We made a commitment as an Executive on this issue. I came forward and said that social housing should be a priority. I said, "Here is what, I believe, our target should be". The Executive agreed to that, signed up to it and reinforced it in the housing supply strategy. It is fairly straightforward that it should follow that the money comes. I have made that case to the Committee and to the Executive. In fairness to the Committee, we were back and forward a little bit on it, and I thank my colleagues and Andy Allen and Mark Durkan for being on board with it from the start. We now have the Alliance and Sinn Féin members of the Committee on board as well. I hope that that can transfer to the Executive.

I am not asking for something new. I have not come up with a new proposal at the last minute that I expect the Executive to fund. However, if we make a promise and give a pledge, and if all agree that it should happen, the funding needs to follow that. I am fed up with people saying how much housing is a priority for them, but they are not prepared to follow that up with the funding.

My clear question is this: where do your priorities lie? I hope that Executive colleagues join me and the Committee in its unanimous view that the money for social housing should be earmarked. The public deserve clarity on that. It cannot just be us who advocate for social housing.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Will the Minister give an update on the conversations that he has had with the Finance Minister on the revitalisation of the Housing Executive?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

That work continues. When I came into post, I said that that should be a priority for us and that we should get it done. I was able to secure cross-party, cross-Executive agreement on the need for it to move forward. Progress has been made — we should acknowledge that — but we have got to the point where the Treasury recognises that it is an issue. We have provided all the information that it has asked for, sometimes two or three times. The work is progressing. There is a sound case to be made, and I will continue to make it and work with Executive colleagues to do so. However, I would appreciate the continued support of everybody in the House, because it is one thing that we can do in the mandate that can be a genuine game changer. Now is the time to get on with it.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

From the outset, we lamented that the Executive's housing targets were nowhere near ambitious enough, but, sadly, as it comes to pass, they now look way beyond reach. Housing needs to be funded, and the SDLP will support any attempt to ring-fence funding for social housing. However, the Minister is well aware that we need to find ways to build more with what we have. Can the Minister update us on his progress in identifying and ascertaining public land that can be used to develop social housing?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for his support. It is important that we have the capital to build homes, but that is not the only thing that we can do. We have to be inventive and look at innovative ways to deliver our targets. That is why I took decisions to help the housing associations grant go further and why I am making changes to the design guide to ensure that houses are built as efficiently as possible. It is also why I have brought a paper to the Executive to outline some of the ways that we can better utilise public land for housing. The paper is now with Executive colleagues, and I have received some feedback from other Ministers. There is more work for us to do to get the paper to a place where other Ministers can agree, but it is something that can be a substitute for capital. If I cannot get it in cash, I want to get it in land. I want to find a way to do that, and I will continue to find ways to make sure that we can get that agreement.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

4. Mr McMurray asked the Minister for Communities for an update on the strategic review of Tollymore National Outdoor Centre, including any associated timelines for action. (AQO 3263/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Sport NI has appointed Fathom Consultancy Solutions, which is engaging with a range of stakeholders to take their views, including the national governing bodies of sport in the outdoor sector, partner organisations and commercial operators. The preferred options for a future operating model are expected to be presented to Sport NI for consideration before the end of March 2026. Following that, Sport NI will deliver a wider public consultation to ensure that local communities, stakeholders and centre users can share their views on the proposed options for the future of the centre. The consultation is planned to start in May and run for 12 weeks. I am not in a position to provide an update on the plans and associated timelines to deliver the future operating model, as those will not become apparent until a preferred option is selected.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

Thank you, Minister. National outdoor centres contribute a huge amount to society, not least through safety, health and economics. Will the Minister meet me and representatives from the national governing bodies to hear at first hand the positive role that national outdoor centres play?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am happy to do that. I hope that we will also hear directly from the Member during the consultation period, because it is a sincere attempt to hear from a wide range of stakeholders and make sure that we put something in place that works for the future.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I thank the Minister for his ongoing engagement with me on the key concerns about Tollymore National Outdoor Centre in the Mournes. I know that the Minister appreciates the important role that it plays, but many people have become concerned as the consultation has progressed. Is there a possibility that the Tollymore National Outdoor Centre could be permanently closed?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

There are no plans to permanently close the Tollymore National Outdoor Centre. I fully recognise that Tollymore has facilities that are unique to Northern Ireland, and it is an important part of our outdoor activity offering. I am also aware that Sport NI has a duty to ensure value for money for the public purse and the sports sector. However, the centre's temporary closure has continued to facilitate the review, which will allow Sport NI to reimagine the role and function of Tollymore National Outdoor Centre in a financially sustainable way, while ensuring that it continues to develop our outdoor sector. I hope that that provides some reassurance to the Member's constituents and others who use the centre.

Peter McReynolds (Alliance, Belfast East)

5. Mr McReynolds asked the Minister for Communities to outline any engagement that he has had with the Minister of Education in relation to the introduction of free school meals for families in receipt of universal credit. (AQO 3264/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The policy and legislative responsibility for the free school meals scheme sits with the Department of Education. Free school meals are available to children in households claiming universal credit where household net earnings do not exceed £15,390 per year. My officials met their Department of Education colleagues, most recently in May and December 2024, to provide assistance in developing guidance for claimants on uploading their universal credit statement to the Department of Education's online portal to allow their eligibility for free school meals to be determined.

Peter McReynolds (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his response. Minister, Advice NI has recommended that children from families in receipt of universal credit should be automatically enrolled for free school meals to ensure that no eligible family misses out.

Were data-sharing arrangements to make auto-enrolment possible discussed at those meetings with the Department of Education? Could that fit into the Executive's anti-poverty strategy?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

My officials have engaged with the Department of Education to provide verification of UC award amounts for those who need to use that service. I am more than happy to explore what else we can do to make sure that that works more easily.

When it comes to the wider issue of what could be included in an anti-poverty strategy, we should put everything on the table, assess all the options and measure them against one another. Many ideas have come forward, including further welfare mitigations and other plans for payments, for short-term support and for the longer-term support that can tackle the root causes of poverty. However, we should not do that in a piecemeal way. As an Executive, with input from the Assembly, we should put all the options on the table and decide what will give us the greatest return on our investment and what will make the biggest difference to the lives of children, young people and others in our society. I am open to hearing all those ideas, weighing them up and seeing what can make a difference.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

6. Mr Tennyson asked the Minister for Communities for an update on ongoing work to provide employability support to those with disabilities to allow them to gain and retain meaningful employment following the changes to the local growth fund. (AQO 3265/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Members will be aware that the local growth fund is administered directly by the UK Government and that the Finance Minister leads on that programme on behalf of the Executive. Beyond the local growth fund, my Department continues to deliver a wide range of employability support to disabled people and people with health conditions. Provision includes specialist health and employability support through Workable, Access to Work and the condition management programme as well as more general support via our front-line jobs and benefits offices, JobStart, the work experience programme and localised interventions commissioned by the labour market partnerships and funded by my Department. Those activities help people with disabilities or health conditions to move into and remain in meaningful employment, with tailored support for them and their employers.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, you will be aware that many community and voluntary sector organisations are crucial to meeting the targets set out in your disability strategy. What assessment have you made of the impact of changes to the local growth fund on that strategy? Do you plan any changes to programmes such as Workable in the context of changes to the local growth fund?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Like every other Member, I want to see a satisfactory resolution to the matter, and, through the Department of Finance, we continue to press that case. The Member is correct in saying that many of the programmes contribute to helping us tackle the wider problems in that area, which is why I want to see them continue. Depending on the outcome, we will examine what needs to be done to make sure that we are still on the path towards meeting those goals. That is why, in bringing all that together, the disability and work strategy will be so important and will make a real difference, as long as we can ensure that it is properly funded.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

The Minister will be aware that the 64% cut in funding for third-sector economic inactivity support projects will result in 400 redundancies in two weeks' time and that the number of beneficiaries of those projects — 1,100 — will be cut in half. Is the Minister's Department in a position to plug the gap created by the reduction in funding from the local growth fund?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Under the draft Budget, I am not in a position to fill those gaps. That is why, as part of the correspondence that I had with the Finance Minister, I raised the fact that the matter had been omitted from the draft Budget. We knew back then that there were concerns about the potential for there to be gaps in funding. I support the moves being made to make the UK Government look at it again, but the Finance Minister missed an opportunity by not referring to it in the draft Budget. If we do not resolve the issue, it will have an impact across Northern Ireland on many issues that multiple Departments are trying to resolve. Including it in the draft Budget would have been the sensible thing to do.

I have written to the Finance Minister. I urge him to explore solutions to address the impacts of reduced budgets, and I stand ready to play my part in that.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

I apologise for not being in my place yesterday, Mr Speaker.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

7. Ms Mulholland asked the Minister for Communities, in light of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's 'Poverty in Northern Ireland 2025' report, to outline any targeted, place-based interventions his Department, working alongside the Department for the Economy, is implementing to address the concentration of low pay and poverty in the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council area. (AQO 3266/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am aware of the Joseph Rowntree Foundation's 'Poverty in Northern Ireland 2025' report, particularly the information in it regarding the high rate of relative poverty after housing costs and the difficulty with accessing jobs with remote and hybrid working in the Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council area and other parts of Northern Ireland. We are working alongside the council to support the Causeway Coast and Glens growth deal. Those growth deals allow for place-based regeneration and represent a shift towards localised economic development, empowering local authorities with resources to drive tailored strategic support. We are also working closely with the council on the proposed leisure and well-being centre, which is one of the growth deal projects. That is currently at outline business case stage, requiring departmental approval.

In addition, my officials are represented on the board supporting the Coleraine Pride in Place programme. That is a 10-year UK Government-funded programme worth £20 million that is aimed at tackling deprivation with a focus on community-led improvements, allowing local people to decide how funds are used to regenerate disadvantaged neighbourhoods and to restore pride in their area.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister. Last week, in Committee, we heard from all 11 councils about the anti-poverty strategy. They told us how important place-based interventions are in tackling poverty. Will he outline what further engagement councils will have? What part will they play in the next stage of the development of the anti-poverty strategy?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I hope that, in the first place, the councils responded to the consultation to ensure that their views are known. Engagement will continue not only on the strategy but on all the other ways in which councils will help us deliver some of the other plans and strategies that we have in place. I have not yet received the read-out of the meeting, so I have not gone into the detail with officials at this stage. I am happy to see what learning we can get from that. Councils have a very important role to play in helping us achieve the ambition that is set out in the document.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

In North Belfast, our councils do vital work to support the long-term unemployed and those who are economically inactive into work. Does the Minister agree that one of the greatest ways to get people out of poverty is by supporting them into work?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes, absolutely. Some of the programmes that I have put in place have made a real change to people's lives. JobStart is one of the most successful tools in our armoury for tackling unemployment. It has a success rate of over 70% return on investment. That is phenomenal, not just from a financial viewpoint. Programmes can make a difference. Getting people into work is really important.

One of my greatest concerns, however, is the working poor: those who do the right thing by trying to get employment but still seem to be hit all the time. I am investing to try to make a difference in their lives. That is why I will be launching the warm healthy homes fund to make key improvements to people's lives so that we increase their income where we can and reduce their outgoings. The cost of heating their home has one of the biggest impacts on people's income. I have a plan to tackle just that.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

8. Ms McLaughlin asked the Minister for Communities to outline how frequently single-let temporary accommodation used to house homeless individuals is formally inspected to ensure the properties consistently meet required safety and quality standards. (AQO 3267/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Single lets are inspected at the point of acquisition by the Housing Executive, and accommodation providers are responsible for all aspects of the maintenance and repair of their properties.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister. We understand that the Housing Executive has conducted multiple visits to non-standard accommodation following concerns about quality. As far as we are aware, however, those visits are more or less to confirm that the properties are occupied. What steps are being taken to implement regular inspections to ensure that the houses are in a good, liveable condition and of a high safety standard?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

In the first instance, I would appreciate it if the Member were to provide me with any specific examples that she has of where those failings are taking place, because I would like to be in a position to investigate them. It should not be the case that the Housing Executive is investigating just to make sure that the houses are occupied. Those inspections should take place, absolutely, but, if there have been complaints, there is a requirement on the Housing Executive to make sure that repairs are actioned. If the repairs are not actioned, those houses should no longer be used as temporary accommodation until they have been actioned.

I have heard concerning comments on this in the Chamber from you and your colleague Mr Durkan, and I will be more than happy to chase those up. I wish that we did not have to use temporary accommodation — certainly not to the extent that we do at the minute — but we need to make sure that the temporary accommodation that we have is fit for purpose. I am happy to work with the Member on that.

Gareth Wilson (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

Minister, what protections exist for tenants in Northern Ireland?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 sets the standard of fitness for human habitation, including for those who are in temporary accommodation. It requires homes to be:

"free from dampness prejudicial to the health of the occupants".

That distinction had not previously been made in other jurisdictions. If that is the case for some houses, that goes against the 1981 Order, and action can be taken.

There are, of course, other statutory protections that exist outside the responsibility of my Department. The Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 gives councils powers to inspect properties and enforce required actions for:

"any premises in such a state as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance".

I hope that people will use those powers.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Minister, much of the single-let temporary accommodation is used to house homeless individuals. As we know, rough sleeping continues to rise, but communication problems between the Housing Executive and front-line agencies seem to have hit an all-time low. Is there anything that you can do to improve the situation?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes, there is. I have been working with the Housing Executive on that and have asked it about the issues with the provision of the severe weather emergency protocol (SWEP) in particular, because there seem to be some communication difficulties there. I have been assured, however, that the Housing Executive notifies funded partners who provide outreach services whenever the SWEP is activated — funded partners such as the Welcome Organisation in Belfast, which I was privileged to be out with last week, and First Housing Aid and Support Services in Londonderry. The Housing Executive will engage with other providers as well.

While the Housing Executive is happy to engage with any organisation that is aware of anyone who is rough sleeping, Members will understand that its focus is on engaging with the organisations that it funds. That is to ensure that appropriate safeguarding procedures are in place and so that we can be assured that people receive appropriate advice, assistance and support.

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

9. Mr O'Toole asked the Minister for Communities to outline any consideration his Department has given to introducing a basic income fund for artists in Northern Ireland similar to the system in the Republic of Ireland. (AQO 3268/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I reiterate the fact that I recognise, understand and value the work of artists and the contribution that they make to the quality of life of the people of Northern Ireland. I note that the Basic Income for the Arts in Ireland programme is going through its first iteration. However, in Northern Ireland, we do not currently have provision in the Budget for a similar scheme, so, at this stage, I have no plans to replicate it.

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

Minister, you will be aware that it is awards season. People enjoy following that, and there are some great nominees and award winners from the North and the South of the island. I wish the nominees all the best for the upcoming Oscars.

Minister, are you looking at properly increasing core arts funding and asking the Finance Minister for a settlement? I recognise that things are tight, but the multi-year Budget offers an opportunity to address the long-standing failure to fund the arts. It is all well and good celebrating glitzy Oscar success and high-end productions, but, if we do not fund basic community arts, we will not get to that end point.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The multi-year Budget does not allow me to do what I want to do for the arts. In fact, unless changes are made, I will be in a difficult position with the budget for the arts, and that is not a position that I want to find myself in. It is essential that we allow the arts to continue to develop. Since my time in office, I have seen their impact more and more. We will need to make sure that any additional funding for the arts goes where it makes a difference and will have maximum impact.

I am happy to consider all the proposals that come forward to me. The Member will be aware of the emphasis that I have placed on getting more people involved in the arts and getting more money into rural communities, working-class communities and communities that have been largely left behind when it comes to funding for the arts. I will continue to do that, but I need the finance in order to get the money to them. Unfortunately, the draft Budget does not allow me to do that.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We will move on to topical questions.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

T1. Mr Durkan asked the Minister for Communities to inform the House, given the spiralling price of fuel, what consideration, if any, has been given to the creation, design and delivery of a support scheme for vulnerable people affected by the current cost-of-living crisis. (AQT 2151/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Of course, I continue to do what I can to help the most vulnerable. Many people have found themselves in that position over recent months and years, not just since the current increase in fuel prices. The Member will be aware that, ultimately, a support package will, first and foremost, be a matter for the Minister for the Economy. I was concerned about the answers that were given to Mr Brett in the Economy Committee today about the £81 million that will be available for support. I ask the Member to ask the Economy Minister what plans she will put in place to make sure that people are properly supported.

As far as I am concerned, I will continue to do what I can in my Department to provide assistance. When the fuel payment was taken off our pensioners by the Labour Government — the Member's sister party — I stepped in, secured money from the Executive and ensured that we were able to provide that support, as the matter fell directly under the responsibility of my Department. I will not step on other people's toes, but I will do what I can, and that is why I have brought forward a fuel poverty strategy that will help in the long term. That is why we are looking at changes to discretionary support so that grants, as well as loans, may be given in the future to help people with the cost of fuel. It is why we continue to provide energy advice. If anyone is facing an immediate risk to their health and well-being, such as being unable to afford essential heating or basic living expenses, they should get in contact with us.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

There is a collective Executive responsibility to protect people here, so it is disappointing to hear that disjointedness and dysfunction are to the fore again. It is hard to tell someone who cannot afford oil today, "Don't worry, this war mightn't last, and you might be able to afford it in a couple of months". While I recognise that the issue is an Executive responsibility, the Executive Office is not answering questions on that. The Minister's Department has the experience and the expertise to design and deliver such a scheme, so I urge him not to sit back. While the war may not last, it will not be the last, so it is important that we have schemes and ready reckoners ready to go if and when the Executive agree to provide support.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

First, I can bring forward support if the funding is there, but the funding has not been allocated to me. From what I understand, it has been allocated to the Department for the Economy, and no plans or requests have come forward. I have stood up in the past. When I was in the Department for the Economy in 2022, I, alongside the UK Government, worked for many months to get the energy payment in place. That was exceptionally difficult because of the way in which our market and our system are set up here in Northern Ireland. However, I got on that straight away. I was in touch with the Utility Regulator and UK Government Ministers almost daily for weeks, so I stepped up when it was my responsibility. I am also ready to step up now and help in whatever way that I can.

Mr McCrossan is gesticulating across the Chamber. He is pointing to the Sinn Féin Benches, and he is absolutely right to do so, because we need to see a plan. I am glad that the Government recognised that at their meeting with the Northern Ireland MPs. That work should continue and should happen. I am ready. We may face more difficulties in five, 10 or 15 years' time. That is why I have put in place a long-term plan that will reduce people's bills year after year. I need Executive colleagues to support me, step up and provide the funding so that, regardless of the circumstances that we find ourselves in because of the global position, it costs less to heat our homes in the first place. I am willing to do that work.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

T2. Mr Harvey asked the Minister for Communities to outline what he will do on St Patrick's Day in Washington DC to ensure that Northern Ireland stands out from the rest. (AQT 2152/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member makes a good point. Mr Harvey says that we want Northern Ireland to stand out. That has not always happened. In the past, all too often, Northern Ireland was an add-on. I am happy to report to the House that that is no longer the case.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am happy to report to the House that Northern Ireland will be front and centre next week in Washington DC. Along with the deputy First Minister, I will be standing up and speaking out for Northern Ireland. We will attend a number of events that have been organised by the Northern Ireland Bureau, the UK embassy, the White House and the Speaker of the House of Representatives. I am also delighted to share with the House that the Department for Communities will host an event in the United States Senate at which we will highlight the role that people from Ulster played in the foundation of the United States. That is something that we should all be proud of and should celebrate, not just to reflect on those who came before us and did incredible things but to point forward to today and show that the spirit that drove people across the Atlantic more than 250 years ago still exists here. The same innovation and resilience exist here today. I am going out to promote Northern Ireland as a region that people should invest in, visit and come to so that they can find out more about their heritage and history.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

Does the Minister agree that Sinn Féin's boycotting Washington DC is a dereliction of its duty to stand up and speak up for Northern Ireland?

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes, of course it is. Here is the thing: we can all have disagreements. In the past, there have been occupants of the White House with whom, I am sure, we will all have had disagreements. However, the fact that you disagree with somebody does not mean that you boycott the opportunity that is in front of you. Next week's events are an opportunity to engage not just with the current US Administration but with other voices in Congress and outside of Congress, in business and culture. That is why it is so important. We have this golden opportunity, once a year, to big up Northern Ireland and be proud of Northern Ireland. I want to see elected representatives out there doing just that. That is what I will do, and it is disappointing that Sinn Féin's narrow-minded approach will prevent that from happening in a cross-Executive way. Regardless, I, along with party colleagues, will be out there speaking up for Northern Ireland.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

T4. Ms Brownlee asked the Minister for Communities what steps he is taking to support our armed forces. (AQT 2154/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am committed to ensuring that veterans and the wider armed forces community receive the right support at the right time and in the right way. We are progressing a dedicated armed forces liaison pathway that will provide a single point of contact and offer a free and confidential needs assessment. The pathway will help identify potential eligibility for benefits, support and services. It will be available to veterans and service personnel who are transferring to civilian life, and to their families, because we are seeking to reduce the risk of disadvantage and ensure that they are accessing the support that they need. In addition, I have brought forward a range of other actions to enhance wider engagement and coordination with veterans and armed forces representative organisations to ensure that the services that we provide can meet their needs. Those actions include the appointment of a senior official as the strategic lead for veterans' issues within the Department and active participation in veterans' roadshows. This is not about securing advantage for one section of our community. It is about making sure that no one is disadvantaged or left behind.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

Thank you, Minister. Does the Minister agree that the First Minister was wrong to suggest that the armed forces are simply a matter for the British Government? Our armed forces community is recognised in legislation, and it is a duty on all of us to support them.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

It was, and it was another dereliction of duty from the First Minister. I was shocked to hear her say in this place, a few weeks ago, "Nothing to do with me". The legislation — the law — says something different. There is a responsibility on all of us, because the covenant applies in Northern Ireland. We have a First Minister who will not go to stand up for Northern Ireland in Washington and who washes her hands of responsibility to her constituents who are in the Middle East. She was also quite content to see the Ministry of Defence removed from a jobs fair in Londonderry. We all have a responsibility to our veterans. We need to stand up for them, and now is the right time for us to do that. I encourage the "First Minister for all" either to do her job or to drop the title.