Northern Ireland Assembly, 20 April 2026

430 contributions from 60 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I have received correspondence from the Minister for the Economy to advise that she is unable to be in the Chamber today. The Minister for Infrastructure will move the relevant items of business on her behalf and will respond to the UUP motion on clean biomethane for Northern Ireland's energy, food and environmental security.

I will make a number of remarks today on issues that I have to deal with. First, in recent weeks, I have had to write to a number of Members about our sub judice rule. Standing Order 73 is clear that:

"A member shall not, in any proceedings of the Assembly, refer to any matter in respect of which legal proceedings are active ... except to the extent permitted by the Speaker."

That rule exists to minimise the risk of prejudice to active proceedings arising from statements in the Chamber. It also ensures that the Assembly and its Members respect the distinct role of the courts in the constitutional settlement. Members will be used to guidance being given from the Chair at the start of a debate if a motion involves any active legal proceedings.

Should a Member wish to refer to a matter that is subject to active proceedings, they must inform the Speaker's Office in advance so that we can consider the extent to which that would be permissible. That is particularly important for Members' statements, but it applies to any intended reference. Advance notice allows the Speaker's Office to take a decision based on legal advice as to the extent that Members can make reference to a specific case without there being a significant risk of prejudice to the proceedings. I therefore remind Members that, if they intend to make reference to current legal proceedings, they should engage with the Business Office, which will consult legal colleagues and advise me accordingly. That will allow me to issue any guidance to Members, if necessary, in order to keep Members right and, most of all, avoid any interference with the role of the courts.

Secondly, I informed Members in February that I was engaging with officials and reflecting on a range of issues that arose from the last mandate to consider how Members can be given additional support to strengthen the legislative culture in the Assembly. I intend to communicate with Members in more detail in the coming weeks, but I am mindful that we have had some amending stages in recent sittings and will have in future sittings. I have made it clear to Members on a number of occasions that we have to learn lessons from the last mandate and manage things differently in this one, particularly in the context of the Mediahuis ruling and the Hospital Parking Charges Act (Northern Ireland) 2024. I am therefore ensuring that I take time to reflect seriously on my decisions in relation to legislation to do what I can within my remit to avoid subsequent issues.

Members will have entirely legitimate political objectives that they wish to pursue, but Members also need to carefully consider whether, how and when they are best addressed in legislation, including when tabling amendments. Our Standing Orders are clear that amendments have to be relevant to the Bill under discussion. That serves the aim of ensuring an orderly and coherent statute book and is an important part of the Speaker’s role. However, there is also a broader onus on Members to recognise that significant risks may arise if amendments seek to introduce complex new areas of law to any Bill at the amending stages, particularly when Committee scrutiny has already ended. At Consideration Stage and particularly at Further Consideration Stage, there are limited opportunities to return to tidy up and address any flaws in amendments that the Assembly has made. Therefore, Members have a significant responsibility to legislate with care and to get it right. That includes reflecting on the appropriate use of primary and secondary legislation. As I say, I intend to return to the matter in detail in future weeks, but I ask Members to reflect as much on how they legislate to achieve a political objective as on the objective itself.

Finally, I regret that I need to return to the issue of challenges to the authority of the Chair. There was an exchange last week between Deputy Speaker Aiken and David Honeyford. Sian Mulholland asked that I review it, but I would have had to return to it in any event.

One of the matters that the Deputy Speakers and I have to judge is whether Members are addressing the matter at hand. The scope of the debate is determined by the thrust of a motion. In this case, it was climate change. If Members address the central themes of a motion, the Chair will normally give some latitude. However, it is not a matter of Members seizing on one or two words in a motion to focus their contribution on other topics. In this instance, Deputy Speaker Aiken had, only moments before, given a Member guidance on the scope of the debate. Yet, despite that, within the first minute of Mr Honeyford’s contribution, he went beyond the ruling that had just been made.

The Deputy Speakers and I often reflect on our decisions. However, Standing Orders are clear that the rulings of the Chair are final and it is out of order for Members to challenge them. Once the Chair has made a ruling, whether Members like it or not, there is no debate to be had. Members should acknowledge that and simply adjust the focus of their remarks.

Deputy Speaker Aiken then dealt with the issue in a way that was fully in line with our procedures. He indicated that, if Mr Honeyford wished to continue speaking, he should focus his remarks as he had already been directed but that, if he had other views on that, he should not continue to speak. When he indicated that he would not, Deputy Speaker Aiken called the next Member. Mr Honeyford strongly and directly challenged the ruling of the Chair a number of times and stated that he was not here:

"to be directed by a Speaker about what I can and cannot say in the Chamber." — [Official Report (Hansard), 14 April 2026, p52, col 1].

That was an unacceptable challenge to the authority of the Chair, clearly in contravention of the Standing Orders. His reference to having been elected from Lagan Valley does not change the Standing Orders for the Member for Lagan Valley: the Standing Orders apply to every Member of the Chamber. It is of concern that Mr Honeyford then posted the exchange on social media and, in comments, sought to make party politics out of the incident.

I have been clear previously that upholding the authority and indeed the impartiality of the Chair is an issue not only for the Deputy Speakers and me but for all Members. When the Deputy Speakers and I rule on scope, it is not about preventing Members from expressing their views; it is about ensuring that any debate remains focused on the topic of the motion. There will always be other opportunities for Members to express views that fall outside the scope of a particular debate on a particular day. In fact, the previous day, I had selected a Matter of the Day deliberately to allow Members to discuss the cost of living and rising energy prices, something on which Mr Honeyford took the opportunity to speak on behalf of his constituents, which was his right. The Deputy Speakers and I may at different times reach different judgements about scope, depending on the circumstances. However, it is essential to the business in the Chamber and the Chamber's good order that I uphold the authority of the Chair, regardless of whether it is me, the Principal Deputy Speaker or the other Deputy Speakers making those judgements.

There is a very clear precedent for how I have dealt with such matters in relation to a number of other Members. I am therefore very happy to give Mr Honeyford the opportunity to apologise to the House, and we can move on. If such an apology is not forthcoming, I will rule that Mr Honeyford will not be called to speak in the House today. I will leave Mr Honeyford to reflect on that, but I want to make it clear to all Members that the authority of the Chair is final.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. While not challenging the judgement of the Chair, I wish to ask under Standing Orders for guidance on why two specific amendments were not selected for debate on the Administrative and Financial Provisions Bill, which was drafted with a very wide scope. We submitted a number of amendments as the Opposition, but two were particularly critical and have wide consensus. One is on the creation of an independent environmental protection agency (EPA), and the other is on a provision for minimum unit pricing in Northern Ireland. Both have significant degrees of political consensus; indeed, there is a degree of urgency with both, particularly the EPA. Therefore, with respect to the Chair and while not challenging the judgement, it goes back to some of what you were saying earlier. It would be helpful if the Chair and the Speaker's Office, at some point, could offer more guidance on this. There will be real concern in the public about our inability in the Assembly to make those vital changes to deliver environmental protection. Thank you.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I respectfully advise the Member to consult the Bill Office, and the staff there will help him with amendments if he needs assistance. The amendments were clearly out of scope. I will say this only once because I do not get into how recommendations are made to me in the Speaker's Office. However, I will do it on this occasion. It was very clear that the amendments were out of scope, so there is nothing political about this. It was clearly a Member seeking to include something that was entirely inappropriate for the legislation ahead. I encourage the Member to engage with the Bill Office, which will give him the appropriate assistance if he looks to table amendments to legislation in the future.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I respect the ruling that you have given, and I apologise. I want to move forward. Thank you.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Thank you very much, Mr Honeyford.

Mr Carroll, were you —

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

No.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

OK.

Matter of the Day

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Kate Nicholl has been given leave to make a statement on potential job losses at the University of Ulster that fulfils the criteria set out in Standing Order 24. Members will be aware that urgent and important issues that fall within the remit of an Executive Minister are normally dealt with in the form of a question for urgent oral answer, and that is what I would have chosen to do. However, as the Minister for the Economy is unavailable today, I have selected this as a Matter of the Day, as I thought that it was an important matter that Members from a number of parties had asked to raise in both formats.

I call Ms Nicholl, and all other Members who are called to speak with have three minutes.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I appreciate your selection of this important matter.

On Wednesday, the announcement of the loss of 450 jobs at Ulster University came as an enormous shock, and, in the days that have since passed, I have been contacted by many people. That is where I want to start with my statement: with the people who are impacted on. They are people who are worried about their jobs, their mortgages and what the future holds. During a cost-of-living crisis, when people are already struggling, the prospect of not having employment has come as a huge concern. What they say to me is not just about their jobs and their worry for their future; they are worried about the workload for the staff who may still have their jobs. They are worried about the impact that this will have on the student experience, on the skills pipeline and on our economy. The ramifications are enormous.

In Ulster University's statement, it said that it will engage with trade unions and staff representative bodies. That is the right thing to do, but we have to be really honest about how we got here. Higher education institutions in Northern Ireland have been under severe and growing financial pressure for a number of years.

The Department for the Economy knows that, and a review of higher education funding has been initiated, but let us be honest: it has not moved with the urgency or ambition that the crisis demands. It lacks ambition and long-term vision. Critically, it seems to lack the buy-in, trust or confidence of the very stakeholders needed to make it work. A review that does not bring people along with it will not be successful. We need a thriving higher education sector. It is critical to the delivery of our Programme for Government commitments, and it cannot keep going on with less year-on-year.

To fulfil our ambitions for the economy, we need to take a generational perspective on the role of higher education and avoid being caught up in annual budgetary shortfalls. That is not a sustainable position for our higher education institutions, staff or students, and it does not support a strategic approach to the future investment required to fuel the research and innovation that the economy needs. My colleague David Honeyford and I have been pushing for real progress on that, and we will not let up, because our universities, staff and students cannot be left behind. They deserve a clear vision and fair funding.

There will be various perspectives on who is to blame. There will be fault across the board. I have written to Ulster University requesting a meeting. I will meet the University and College Union (UCU) tomorrow. Any Members who wish to join that online call will be welcome. Gerry Carroll and I have been engaging with the union, and it is important that we hear workers' voices. It is really important, however, that the Assembly ensure that the Department for the Economy is doing everything that it can.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Time is up, Kate. Thank you.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Like the previous Member, my first thoughts are with the staff of Ulster University who have been impacted by the announcement and their families. Behind every post at risk is a person, a family and a future now placed in doubt. They deserve our support at this time. More important, they deserve answers, and the search for those answers leads directly to the Sinn Féin-controlled Department for the Economy.

The party opposite cannot plead ignorance on the issue. It was warned repeatedly that failure to deal with higher education funding would lead to exactly this outcome. Universities, their staff and representatives from across the House have raised concerns. The warnings were clear; the risks were known; and the consequences, unfortunately, were entirely predictable, yet the Minister chose inaction. She chose delay and spin over solutions, and hundreds of workers are now paying the price for that. Sinn Féin cannot blame anyone else for this. The Minister owns this. The Department for the Economy is under the control of Sinn Féin. The responsibility for supporting ministerial direction in universities lies with Minister Archibald, and she cannot now point fingers at anyone else.

Let us be clear: the impact will not be felt just by those 450 members of staff. Students will feel the impact through reduced services not just in my constituency of North Belfast but in East Londonderry, Coleraine and Foyle, with the Magee expansion now clearly at risk. Those are not my words; they were the words of the permanent secretary of the Department for the Economy just three weeks ago. It is disappointing, therefore, that we have not heard from the Minister on the issue. I hope that, when she recovers, she will be able to come to the House, because this matter is of serious consequence. It points to a litany of mistakes and failures in the Department for the Economy: 300 jobs at Cantor Fitzgerald lost by the Minister; legislation from the Minister that is opposed by every major business organisation in Northern Ireland; and a Department that does not even know that it has £81 million.

Northern Ireland needs strong leadership in the Department for the Economy. Our institutions need strong leadership. Unfortunately, this is not the first announcement of jobs that have been lost under Sinn Féin. The House needs to hold the Minister to account. She is failing the people of Northern Ireland.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

As other Members said, this is a really serious issue. A university is about to shed 15% of its workforce, and we will have to deal with the impact that that will have on staff, students and the wider economy, particularly in the north-west.

What makes the situation so concerning is the contradiction at its centre. The Department's own financial needs assessment, which the Minister commissioned, states that Ulster University:

"is not facing the kind of imminent financial crisis which is the case for some of its counterparts",

yet there is now the possibility of hundreds of job losses. The same report states:

"Any significant risks to quality or breadth of provision are more likely to arise in the medium term rather than the short term."

That report was given to the Committee just a couple of weeks ago, but it is so out of date that it needs to be put in the bin.

That raises the obvious question of how we reached this point. Either the assessment does not reflect the reality facing the sector or the warning signs were not identified and the necessary actions taken in time. Universities have raised concerns about the assessment, but, even taking it at face value, it is clear that the pressures did not arise overnight but have instead been building over a number of mandates, with funding under strain and costs increasing.

The potential job losses matter particularly to the north-west, where Ulster University plays a vital role in economic development of my constituency by providing opportunities. We continue to hear about the commitment to expand Magee to 10,000 students, alongside the other ambitions set out in the city deal for Derry city and Strabane. It is vital that we deliver on its ambitions, but, at the moment, it is difficult to see how that can be done if the workforce that we need in order to expand — additional workforce is needed, be that administrators or those looking after the faculties and new builds — is reduced on the scale that has been suggested. Growth and expansion depend on people, and to say otherwise is simply incorrect.

There is also a wider issue. Too often, Ministers seek the powers of office, but, when difficult decisions are required or when problems are identified, they have a tendency to delay any necessary action. Action was needed on the issue a long time ago, but —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

— nothing came forward.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I declare that I am a past pupil of Ulster University — there may be some of its students in the Gallery today — and a former sabbatical officer of its students' union.

We have to say unequivocally that Ulster University management's proposal to sack 450 workers is a mistaken, ill-thought-out and regressive move. I hope that others will support my call for Ulster University's management body to reverse that disgraceful decision, which will cause untold harm to students and communities across the North. As has been said, they are already facing a cost-of-living crisis, with the price of fuel going through the roof and food prices skyrocketing. What are those 450 workers expected to do? Where are they expected to go for work?

Unfortunately, the decision is predictable. It is what happens when universities and other institutions become more wedded to marketisation than to educating. Universities are being treated as factory lines rather than being about lifting up communities and educating people about history and the world around them more generally. The management of Ulster University seems to be more concerned about shiny new buildings, international flights, celebrities and balancing budgets than about students and workers on campus.

It says a lot about the type of society in which we live that Ulster University, or any other institution, can, with Stormont's acquiescence, overspend on a building until it ends up costing £350 million but, at the same time, issue hundreds of P45s to the people who will work in that building: those who make education possible for people across our constituencies. What is the point of having shiny new buildings if hundreds of staff are to be laid off and those left, who will be forced to do the jobs of two, three or four people, are overworked and stressed to the max?

I am concerned. Like the Member for South Belfast, I have been contacted in recent days by people who are appalled at the decision. I have also been contacted by staff who are scared to speak out. That says a lot about the culture that is in place not just at Ulster but at many places across the North. They are scared of speaking out and of what the ramifications will be if they raise their heads above the parapet.

Our assessment is that the blame for the debacle lies with Ulster University's management as well as with the Executive, who have taken a head-in-the-sand approach to properly funding higher education. They have failed to invest in higher education and have forced students to pay more for education year-on-year when it should be free.

I extend my solidarity to the University and College Union and to the students who will be fighting the decision and pushing back against it. This situation may have been predictable, but it certainly was not inevitable. With the coming together of the will of students, workers and people in the House, we can defeat the decision.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I declare an interest as a former student of Ulster and because a close family member was employed by Ulster.

My thoughts, like those of other Members, are, first and foremost, with the staff of Ulster University at this incredibly difficult, challenging and upsetting time for them. I extend our solidarity to them, their union colleagues and their families.

The Executive have consistently made the case to the Treasury in London for proper, secure funding. Its failure to provide that has resulted in financial uncertainty across our education and community sectors as well as our wider society. Aligning tuition fees with those in England is not the answer, because further and higher education institutions in England also face job losses, redundancies and cuts to their funding; they also face a number of the challenges that we see here today, with 13,000 roles lost in the past year alone. That has been the case for many years.

We need to look at the review of higher education funding to try to alleviate some of the pressures that universities face. Under the leadership of Caoimhe Archibald, the Department for the Economy has invested significantly in Ulster University over the past number of years and in the past two years in particular. The difficult financial situation that that university and all other third-level education institutions are experiencing has been experienced for many years prior to this. The North cannot be a mudguard for cuts made by the British Government. We need a consistent and collaborative approach from all parties and sectors, demanding better — demanding stability and proper funding from the Treasury.

Diana Armstrong (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The news that Ulster University is considering up to 450 job losses is deeply concerning. I urge all parties involved to do everything possible to avoid compulsory redundancies. If the cuts proceed, it will represent a bitter blow not only for the dedicated staff and the families affected but for the students and for the wider higher and further education sector across Northern Ireland.

The current situation has not arisen in isolation, and it must prompt much wider and more honest conversation about the long-term sustainability of higher education funding in Northern Ireland. Ulster University has made it clear that the failure to uplift tuition fees in line with inflation, combined with the real-terms erosion of the block grant, has left institutions to operate with little financial flexibility. The UUP believes that the current cap on student numbers actively limits our universities' ability to grow, innovate and diversify their income streams. Those structural pressures simply cannot be ignored, and the Economy Minister must seriously consider how our universities are funded and supported in the future. At the same time, we believe that universities have a responsibility to manage their finances prudently and transparently. They must demonstrate to staff, students and the public that every possible avenue has been explored before posts are placed at risk, including a clear examination of expenditure and financial decisions such as those associated with the greater Belfast campus.

One of the most significant challenges is the Stormont-imposed cap on the maximum number of students that our universities can enrol. That policy not only restricts growth but actively contributes to brain drain, driving many of our brightest students to study elsewhere. We believe that the Minister should urgently review the cap, explore additional funding options and take responsibility for delivering solutions, rather than deflecting blame.

The figures speak for themselves: our universities are becoming increasingly dependent on higher fees from students from Great Britain and overseas simply to remain financially viable. Non-domestic student numbers have risen sharply in recent years. While internationalisation has its place, it cannot be the foundation on which our higher education system survives. Universities should be centres of learning and opportunity, not institutions that are forced into unsustainable financial models. You have only to look at our universities' social media to see their determined push to attract international students.

We continue to see large numbers of local students leave Northern Ireland to study in Great Britain, many of whom do not return. At the same time, we are filling places with international students who are equally unlikely to remain here after graduation. That is not a sustainable approach to building our workforce, strengthening our economy or securing our future prosperity. The student number —.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Diana Armstrong (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Regardless of what some Members in the Chamber may claim or how they try to spin it, the public know the uncomfortable truth for the Executive: higher education has always been a devolved issue. It therefore simply will not wash for Stormont to try to pass the buck to Westminster on the matter.

For years, nationalist politicians have campaigned for the focus of attention to be on Magee, resulting in Coleraine being neglected. Let us look at the facts. Even in the aftermath of the devastating news for Coleraine's Ulster University, a spokesperson for the Department said that the expansion of the Londonderry campus remained "a clear ministerial priority". That is something that the whole Executive cannot wash their hands of. It is a Belfast issue, not a London issue. The Sinn Féin Minister cannot blame the Brits when this has happened on her watch.

In the current Programme for Government, the Executive committed to working:

"towards expanding the campus at Magee up to 10,000 students".

By way of contrast, there is a vague commitment to support Coleraine. I ask this of all the Executive parties today: where is that support? You cannot blame London when the reality is that that power is devolved. Prioritising the expansion of one campus has left Coleraine as the poor relation. Rather than washing their hands of the matter, the Executive must provide the funding required by Ulster University. Last week's news was the result of policies pursued by the Executive. This is not about a funding crisis at Westminster; it is about a political choice taken at Stormont.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

I support Ulster University. My thoughts are with the staff who are under threat of redundancy at the minute. Ulster University has now confirmed the 450 redundancies across its campuses. It said that it tried to:

"hold off on making redundancies while continuing to [engage] with the Department ... on possible changes to the ... [higher education] funding model in Northern Ireland."

However, it now says:

"a sustainable model is not going to be forthcoming".

I ask the Minister whether she removed £7 million from the higher education budget and, some months later, allocated £7 million to Magee. I would like clarification on that. At the same time, the Minister presents the expansion of Magee as a flagship priority. In January, she said:

"I will continue to prioritise Magee within my budget".

However, her Department said in evidence to the Economy Committee that the current year's spending on the Magee expansion was £7 million and that getting Magee to 10,000 students by 2032 would require either increased student fees or an additional £40 million a year in resource funding. Ulster University's accounts show a 2025 operating deficit of £20·2 million. It says that there has been no inflationary growth in the teaching grant for almost two decades and that the funding model has not properly reflected the added cost of operating a multi-campus university.

Will the Minister level with the House? Where is the fully funded plan for Magee? What assurances can she give that the pressure created by the underfunded model will not fall on Coleraine through drift, contraction or managed decline? For the past two or three years, colleagues and I have been meeting the university to try to ensure that a scenario such as this did not arise. Unfortunately, we are where we are. I blame the Minister for poor planning, including poor financial planning. She should come here to address the issues.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Universities are not just places of learning. They are vital to our economy. They are the engine of our economy and the catalyst for so many businesses that we are rightly proud of across Northern Ireland that create jobs, drive innovation and build prosperity. Their intellectual property is owned here, and that increases our export and viability. That is why it is deeply concerning that Ulster University has put 450 jobs at risk. Behind that number are lecturers, researchers and support staff — people who have dedicated their careers to educating the next generation to help build our economy. We, and they, deserve better than uncertainty; they deserve a system that works.

This is not a one-off issue. We have heard repeatedly from both universities here that funding is not working. In recent years, the Department has come to the Committee repeatedly, and it has been simply more of the same as the decade before: there is no long-term, clear strategic plan. At a time when we talk about growing our economy, building skills and attracting inward investment, we cannot afford to undermine the institutions that deliver the skills and deliver all three. If we are serious about opportunity, we must be serious about our universities and the opportunities that they create for our economy. That means a sustainable future, and it means giving our young people, and those who go back in later life to reskill, real and accessible pathways into good jobs. This has got to be about more than just the balance sheet. It has to be about protecting those opportunities and protecting and backing our local talent. It is about the future of this place and the region and about building lives, careers and businesses here that can excel. We need less talk as we move forward, and we need more delivery.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

When the Ulster University campus was relocated from Jordanstown, where I attended and studied — anyone in the Chamber who studied there will recognise the stark difference between that and what is now at the Belfast campus — we in north Belfast were promised a reinvigoration, a revitalisation and a connection to our communities in that part of the city. For years, we looked on with anxiety and stress at the new build coming on and the stalling of it. However, when it finally happened, we were thankful that it was relocating to the north part of the city, and we were thankful for the opportunities that it could bring for local people, also opening gateways to connect north Belfast with the rest of the city. Unfortunately, when we hear about the 450 job losses, my thoughts are with the people who are affected, but it will also affect the wider community that is concerned about what it means for the future of the campus.

To the particular people from Ulster University who have been in contact: our thoughts are with you. We are concerned for your future. We have to be realistic here. Northern Ireland has only two universities. There are not many opportunities for people in academia or at university management level. We will lose people to across the water again; we will also lose students, because there is no doubt that, as we lose staff, courses will be cut. Therefore our students and people in Northern Ireland will, again, look across the water. I echo the comments of my colleague regarding the fact that this is happening in universities across the UK, but we have specific issues here in Northern Ireland that have not been addressed. Where is the review of higher education funding? Why have we not seen the Minister be forthcoming with what the Department can do in that respect? We need to deliver for people here who will drive the economy. People who work in academia at Ulster University collect data not only to enrich policy here but to drive legislation, to drive changes that can be made and, ultimately, to drive the economy. We have students here who will be applying for university in the next few years and are now wondering whether that will affect them too. We need clarity on that. Whilst our thoughts are with the staff at Ulster University, our thoughts and actions should also be about sustaining our higher education system across Northern Ireland so that our people here can benefit.

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

I was not going to speak on this matter because my colleagues have covered it all fairly comprehensively, but I want to reflect for a couple of minutes on where we are with the situation at Ulster University. First and foremost, my thoughts are with those directly affected at the institution, the first being staff who are worried about their jobs and livelihoods. I stand in solidarity with them. I know that the University and College Union will campaign hard to try to establish the position, to defend against compulsory redundancies and to give those staff the maximum help.

My thoughts are also with the students. I met a group of Ulster University students from the student council when they came to Stormont just last week. I sponsored them to have their student council meeting here. They talked about a range of issues, including their own prospects. They are very passionate, brilliant young people, and, if we can, we want to keep them here to grow our economy, contribute to public services and grow this society. Some of them are perhaps thinking about leaving for onward education or employment. Everything about the announcement from Ulster University goes against those priorities and what the Minister and her predecessor have said about the priority being placed on higher education here in Northern Ireland, both in relation to the expansion of Magee and, more generally, when it comes to building a high-skill economy here in the North.

The problem is the failure to take responsibility. We have had successive Ministers claim credit and take photo opportunities when it suits, whether that is at the Ulster University campus in Belfast or when progress has been made at Magee. Although we welcome that, those Ministers then fail to support higher education when it matters. As the Member who spoke previously said, we have been promised a review of the funding of higher education, but that still has not arrived. We do not know where it is. You can add that to a long list of other things at the Executive and at Stormont that we have been promised but that have not been delivered, including a plan for NI Water so that houses can be built and Lough Neagh can be defended; and an investment strategy to set out to the public and private sectors the infrastructure and investment priorities of the Executive over the next number of years. The list goes on and on.

Prime among that list is the multi-year Budget. All the things that we want to build in the long term when it comes to our public services and our economy cannot be done without a multi-year Budget, but the Executive have failed. The Minister has not stood up and accepted responsibility, because the culture in this Executive is to shift responsibility to someone else. The students, staff and faculty at Ulster University and, indeed, our economy more broadly deserve better than that. They deserve proper accountability, and we in the Opposition will be pressing for that.

Members' Statements

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I rise this afternoon to speak about something that troubled me all weekend: the CNN investigation into the so-called rape academy, which is an international rape ring and online forum where men shared tips and tricks on how to drug and abuse their wives and partners whilst they were most vulnerable and were sleeping, oftentimes filming the footage and sharing it with others. Everything about that story is vile and disgusting and should sicken the stomachs of everyone who encounters it. Some of the reaction to it has been equally troubling.

I have seen the phrase "not all men" used liberally in response, and I can understand the rationale for that, because it is not all men. Most men are good. I consider myself lucky. I grew up in a loving home with a mother and father who loved and respected each other and who demonstrate partnership every day. I am blessed to have a dad who made it his life's work to protect and provide for me and my sister, and I know that I am lucky that I can say that. I am a member of a movement that cherishes men and women equally. I work with good men every day. I know them and call them my friends, and I trust them. However, even with that said, I have not been sheltered from the worst of men, and that is true for every woman. That is what we all have to consider.

While most of the 62 million hits in February and 81 million hits in March might have come from the United States and places other than here, none of that happens in isolation. This is the most dangerous place in Europe to be a woman. It is those disgusting videos that glamourise violence and normalise the abuse and assault of women that plant the seed in our young people that leads to women being murdered. We see that abuse and bullying even in the Chamber. Not long ago, we had tributes in this place to a woman who had been murdered from a man who had spent the previous weekend circulating souvenirs of his own abuse of a female colleague. It is not appropriate. It has to be challenged and called out. I call on everybody in the Chamber to think about what we endorse and to think about our behaviour. It is not all men, but it is some men. As women, we do not always know the difference. If you are not part of the solution, you become part of the problem. I urge everyone to consider that and react to those events holistically.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Many of us on these Benches, when we watch the debacle in Westminster, will hope that today is the last day for the current Prime Minister, given his handling of the affairs of his Government, particularly when we look at Lord Mandelson's appointment to the high office of UK ambassador and how that has unfolded over the past number of weeks and months. From what we read now, it seems that protocols that were put in place to protect our Government, including the interrogation demanded by the high security requirements of that position, were set aside to allow their pal to hold such high office.

Of course, one might wonder why we are speaking about that. I want to bring us back to the House. Many of us will be aware that, when the previous Police Ombudsman was appointed to office — of course, many of us will also be aware of how it went for that particular individual — that appointment took place at a time when there was no devolution in Northern Ireland, meaning that the appointment process rested solely with the Northern Ireland Office. Following the necessary procedures and departmental clearances, including by the Department of Justice, the decision rested with the then permanent secretary, Mr Peter May. Concerns have now been raised with others and me about the integrity of that appointment process. We should all be concerned about that. Mrs Anderson was, nevertheless, deemed suitable and was subsequently appointed to the role, which carries access to highly sensitive information on senior policing personnel — a matter that alarmed us then and should alarm us more now. If such claims are accurate, they raise deep and serious concerns about the robustness of the vetting process, the safeguards that were put in place at the time and the decision-making that led to her appointment.

Later today, my party leader will raise the matter in Westminster and seek answers from the Northern Ireland Office on whether Mrs Anderson successfully passed all the security requirements of the vetting processes prior to her appointment in May 2019. If the concerns raised during vetting have now been assessed and addressed, given the sensitivity of the Office of the Police Ombudsman and the importance of maintaining public confidence, its independence and, of course, its integrity, it is essential that full transparency be provided on the matter. As a party, we on these Benches will continue to push until we get all the answers to all those questions.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I have stood in the Chamber many times to celebrate my constituents' success in their clubs and sports clubs, and to remember those whom we are here to serve. That has to be at the heart of what we do. I want to take a moment to place on record my sincere congratulations to Lisnagarvey Hockey Club on its outstanding achievement, at the weekend, of winning the EY all-Ireland hockey league for the fifth time in the past 10 years. The league sat in the balance going into the final week of the season, but Saturday saw "Garvey" come through and take the incredible win. The club is, as I said, no stranger to success or silverware. However, to keep that remarkable success going year after year is a testament to the dedication, talent and hard work right across the club, from players and coaches to the volunteers and supporters who give so much of their time behind the scenes.

For me, there is a personal element. My daughter started to play hockey at "Garvey" way back.

Like so many families, we have great memories of being at the club. It is a club that develops not just sporting ability but confidence and teamwork. It has built a really brilliant community spirit in Hillsborough.

I have also really enjoyed being able to support the club practically with grant applications and by working alongside the people who are involved there. It is genuinely so encouraging to see that commitment and investment translated into success through getting results at the highest level. "Garvey" continues to set the standard not just through its results but in how a club can be rooted in the community while striving for excellence. I wish the team every success at the EY Champions Trophy finals weekend in May. I have no doubt that I will be back in the Chamber celebrating more silverware.

Jon Burrows (UUP, North Antrim)

On Friday, I met Kenny Bradley, a businessman and the owner of Kenny's garage, along with other business persons and local people, to discuss Kilrea Bridge. Kilrea Bridge is a historic bridge that has served the people of Northern Ireland since before the French Revolution. In fact, it had been standing for 120 years before the first car drove over it, but the bridge has not been properly inspected and maintained. Last September, it had to be closed suddenly, and it remained closed for three months. The bridge's closure caused devastation in the area. It delayed public services from doing their important work and children from getting to school. Crucially, it decimated local businesses, which lost hundreds of thousands of pounds.

The bridge is vital, as it really connects the people of that region of Antrim, Londonderry and Tyrone. I spoke to one farmer who lost £10,000 in the three months that the bridge was closed. There is now real demand that the Executive get their act together and sort out a new bridge for Kilrea. The people of Kilrea are proud of their historic bridge, but, alongside it, they need a new bridge. A new bridge needs to be commissioned and a feasibility study done. Progress needs to be made on getting that bridge in place.

I call for three clear actions. First, there should be a better inspection and repair regime for the existing bridge, which, I am glad to say, is open again, to ensure that it stays open for as long as is needed until there is a new bridge. Secondly, the Department for Infrastructure should start to develop a contingency plan now to scope out what a temporary bridge would look like should the bridge have to be closed again for unforeseen reasons. Let us plan for a temporary bridge now so that the Department is shovel-ready. Thirdly, the Department for Infrastructure needs to take immediate action to begin a phase 1 feasibility study on a new bridge.

People across Northern Ireland see the Executive dither and delay, unable to agree a multi-year Budget and arguing about all the wrong things. The Executive need to listen to local businesses, local citizens and local farmers, who rely on them to pull their finger out to get a bridge sorted out and to start delivering for the people of Northern Ireland. I therefore call on the Minister for Infrastructure in particular to visit Kilrea and speak to the people to whom I spoke. Let us get the bridge built for Kilrea.

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

Mothers and families can rest assured that their babies will be born in Daisy Hill Hospital, the hospital in which they and generations of their family were born. I warmly welcome the confirmation from the Southern Health and Social Care Trust that elective caesarean sections are not due to be ceased at Daisy Hill Hospital. That confirmation was provided to 'Armagh I', amid rumours of proposals to end such provision at our hospital's brilliant maternity ward. Especially in the context of birth rates in Newry and Armagh and South Down being higher than birth rates anywhere else in the North, that rumour caused considerable worry and concern.

Over 800 caesarean sections were performed at Daisy Hill Hospital in 2025, which further demonstrates how important it is that we protect that vital life-saving and life-giving service. The news will be reassuring for the dedicated and extremely professional maternity teams not only at Daisy Hill Hospital but at Craigavon Area Hospital. The service that is provided in every ward and department at Daisy Hill Hospital is extraordinary, despite the resourcing challenges often faced by teams in our brilliant hospital. I thank all the hard-working midwives and maternity staff at Daisy Hill Hospital and Craigavon Area Hospital, who have always demonstrated a powerfully positive esprit de corps and extraordinary expertise, along with genuine care and support for expectant mothers and their families.

I recently spoke to the Southern Trust board about the importance of improving staff recruitment numbers to ensure that maternity teams experience the highest possible level of support in their jobs. I hope that the trust will implement plans to bolster staff recruitment.

I again express my sincere thanks to all the maternity workers at Daisy Hill Hospital for all that they do to care for mothers and babies. The importance of the work that they do and the expert care that they offer is felt by everyone who walks through the doors of the maternity ward. They are worth their weight in gold.

With the news that elective caesarean sections will continue at the maternity ward at Daisy Hill Hospital, mothers and families can be assured that their babies can be born in the same hospital where they were born and where generations of their families were born.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Last Friday, 17 April, was Palestinian Prisoners' Day. There are nearly 10,000 Palestinians in Israeli prisons, and among them are 350 children. Some 3,500 of those prisoners are on remand. A similar number are in prison as a result of what is called "administrative detention". We know that better here as "internment", where people are thrown into prison without any due process. The rest are, by and large, called "unlawful combatants" who have been captured in Gaza and thrown into prison, again without any due process.

Israel and its supporters often claim that it is the only democracy in the Middle East: of course, that is not true. Israel is a genocidal state, as we have seen in recent times, whose leaders are wanted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity. It is also an apartheid state, and we saw evidence of that recently when the Knesset introduced a law that gave Israel the right to execute Palestinian prisoners, not Israeli prisoners or Israelis who are serial killers or have been found guilty of some of the most heinous crimes, such as killing children: it is just Palestinians. One wonders why they even need it, when 87 Palestinian prisoners have died in Israeli custody in the past year. Two who died were raped. One of them had the muzzle of an M-16 rifle shoved into his rectum, which tore his intestines to shreds, and he died not long afterwards. Another prisoner had the nozzle of a fire extinguisher forced into his rectum and set off. He died shortly after that. In another incident, CCTV cameras caught a number of Israeli prison guards raping a Palestinian prisoner. What happened to them? They were let off and feted in Israeli society as celebrities and heroes.

Genocide has not just been a graveyard for thousands of Palestinians; it is the graveyard of international humanitarian law and human rights law. Why should we be surprised when the Israeli Minister for National Security, Itamar Ben-Gvir, was seen recently going into the prisons with TV cameras to berate, humiliate and verbally abuse Marwan Barghouti, who has been imprisoned for 23 years and is known in Palestine as the Palestinian Nelson Mandela. He has not been broken in 23 years. He continues to resist, and Itamar Ben-Gvir could not lace his boots.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

People across Northern Ireland are being squeezed from every direction, and the sad reality is that too many in politics are making the situation worse. Families are being punished every time they go to the petrol pumps. Small businesses watch as costs spiral, and farmers are being hit by soaring costs and tighter margins. It is no wonder that, across Northern Ireland, people are out protesting.

When hard-working people feel ignored, anger grows. The police must be cautious, proportionate and focused on keeping people safe while respecting a fundamental right of our democracy: the right to protest. However, those people are not asking for sympathy; they are asking one simple question: how can they survive? That is why it was important that, last week, the Executive supported Minister Gordon Lyons's proposal to provide £100 of direct support towards fuel bills for over 300,000 households across Northern Ireland, including families who earn too much to qualify for help but nowhere near enough to keep up with the rising cost of living. There is much more to do, but that is an important first step.

We will continue to hold our national Government's feet to the fire and demand action on a UK-wide basis, but responsibility also rests with those in the House to act in the interests of the people whom we represent. Sadly, too many here are playing the same game by voting for things in the House that, they know, can never be delivered. Last week, parties backed a proposal for free school meal payments for some children over the summer period at a cost of up to £30 million a year. Let me be clear: everyone wants to support those in need, and that is a noble cause, but, when the Bill sponsor was asked how it would be funded, we were met with silence. When other parties were asked who would pay for it, we were again met with silence. They know the truth that, when money comes from the Education budget, that means less support for children in the classroom. The same fantasy economics happens with regard to net-zero politics. Targets are announced and motions are passed, but, when the question is asked as to who pays for them, again there is silence. The life-saving A5 project, which was blocked as a result of votes in the House, has been met with silence. That is gesture politics, and ordinary people pay the price.

People are fed up with this charade. We need common sense in politics, and this party will continue to stand by that principle.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

I will speak on the topic of artificial intelligence (AI), which is something that I talk about a lot. About a year and a half or two years ago, I attended a number of economic conferences, and I realised that they always had a panel on AI. It was something that I did not really understand, but I realised that I needed to. I started to speak to experts in academia, business and safeguarding, and it became clear to me that we needed an AI strategy. A draft strategy was worked on and was given to the Executive Office in December 2025, but we are still waiting for its publication.

In Scotland, they are on the second iteration of their strategy. They have issued specific guidance to schools in relation to AI. Down South, they are on their second or third iteration, but we still wait. We are already world leaders in medical software and cybersecurity. When you look at our skills and the links that our universities have with business, you see that we are primed to be world leaders in the AI space. Businesses tell us that, with strategy and support, we could lead the way in so many areas. The opportunities are enormous. The Northern Health and Social Care Trust has had success with its fracture clinics, and Queen's University is looking at how to cure motor neurone disease.

There are amazing opportunities, but we also know that AI comes with serious risks, and we see the darker side of that in so many ways with ChatGPT and some of the awful things that have been happening. We need to understand that, and we need to have a strategy and a vision. We cannot put our heads in the sand. I feel as though I am one of the few people who talk about this constantly, but it is so important.

Our young people will have to imagine a completely different future in a world that we do not know. They do not need software development skills; they need critical thinking skills. When we are looking at a new curriculum, we will have to take advances in AI into consideration.

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

We have enormous potential in Northern Ireland, but, so often, we lack ambition and drive.

We need to ensure that we can be world leaders in the ethical and responsible use of AI. That requires having an AI strategy from the Executive Office. There needs to be a specific strategy in Education and real, meaningful work in Economy. I welcome the meeting of the AI advisory panel with the Minister last week, but that was too slow. If we are really to capitalise on AI and ensure that people are upskilled and able to utilise AI and mitigate its risks, we need to have a plan. It is important that the Executive act with urgency on that.

Maolíosa McHugh (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Mí na Feasachta ar an Strus an mhí seo. Tugtar deis dúinn lena linn sos a ghlacadh agus ár machnamh a dhéanamh ar na gnéithe is strusmhaire inár saol agus aghaidh a thabhairt ar bhainistiú na strus sin. Is é téama mhí na feasachta i mbliana "Déan thusa an tAthrach". Spreagtar daoine le laghdú ar an strus trí theorainneacha a shuí, sosanna a ghlacadh agus nósanna sláintiúla a bhunú. Molaim do gach duine aird a thabhairt ar na céimeanna sin agus úsáid a bhaint astu. Tá sé tábhachtach againn, sa tSeomra seo, mar lucht déanta beartas agus mar ionadaithe tofa, a aithint gur féidir linne bheith mar chuid den athrú sin.

Is minic struis airgeadais na struis is troime a chuireann ar dhaoine. Goilleann an ghéarchéim sa chostas maireachtála ar gach duine, agus tá go leor teaghlach ag streachailt le greim a choinneáil faoin fhiacail. Ba mhasla é an t-airgead a thairg Rialtas na Breataine an mhí seo caite do theaghlaigh atá ag streachailt le díol as ola téite baile. Ní riarfaidh sé ar riachtanais na ndaoine ná ar leath a riachtanas. Is ionadaithe tofa sinn. Mar sin de, caithfimid a bheith ag obair i gcomhar, leis an ualach atá ar ár dtoghthóirí a éadtromú.

Ní mór dúinn bheith aireach ar ár struis féin fosta, pé acu struis phearsanta, struis oibre nó struis airgeadais iad. Caithfidh gach duine againn an t-am a ghlacadh lenár struis féin a aithint agus le dul i ngleic leo sa dóigh is go dtig linn bheith ar theann ár ndíchill.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

On Thursday last, at the Court of Appeal ruling on the Coagh inquest, the Lady Chief Justice, Dame Siobhan Keegan, confirmed that the coroner was right to find that the actions of the SAS soldier known as soldier B had been justified when responding to an IRA attack in 1991. The court was clear that he acted proportionately in what was a deadly and fast-moving situation. The decision highlights why so many veterans are deeply worried about the current legacy process. These cases have been allowed to drag on for years, placing huge pressure on veterans and their families. The Lady Chief Justice also made it clear that the arguments used in the challenge were not what judicial reviews are meant for. Put simply, the legal system is being used in ways in which it was never designed to be used.

We need to be absolutely clear about one thing: the terrorists who set out to murder that day in Coagh had one objective, which was to kill and terrorise. They were not out to make a citizen's arrest. Some people have the mindset that you can somehow have a chat with and then arrest a terrorist who is heavily armed and has carried out murder in the past. That does not happen. That day, as always, the terrorists thought that they could murder innocent people and run back to their safe house, but that did not happen. Was the attack filed under "Coagh" in the IRA filing cabinet for all to see in the future? No, it was not. Those terrorists and supporters thought that they were at war when they were successful with their murdering campaign but innocent men when killed by the British Army. A terrorist is a terrorist, whether at Coagh, Westminster Bridge or the Manchester Arena bombing. Was that justified? Was there no alternative?

Please do not try to dress raw murder, here or anywhere, in some form of glorification. It does not wash. There is no comparison between the men and women who were sent to uphold the law and those who tried to destroy it through violence. It is high time that some people in Northern Ireland and across the world understood right from wrong. When you drive into a village to murder innocent people, that is wrong, and it has consequences.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I call Timothy Gaston. Timothy, you have two and a half minutes.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Thank you very much, Principal Deputy Speaker.

The fuel protests that we have witnessed over the past week did not appear overnight. Tension has been building for many months as a reaction to government overreach. For many ordinary working people — the alarm clock workers who keep our economy moving — enough is enough. The rising cost of fuel is the final straw, adding to the already significant pressures on businesses, with the UK's having the highest industrial energy price and endless red tape. Today, working men and women are watching closely to see whether the Labour Government and the Executive are prepared to take action to ease those burdens. There is a growing belief that the Government want to save the planet for future generations but fail to realise that they are killing this generation in the process. That is why we saw such strong public support for last week's protests. Anyone who spent a few minutes on social media would have seen the level of appreciation and support for those taking part.

Farmers are the backbone of our rural and wider economy. Time and time again, they go above and beyond, responding to the needs of their economy. They clear trees after storms, they clear roads after heavy snowfall, and they help during flooding. They work long hours, often for below minimum wage, to produce high-quality produce that feeds our nation. The police response last week to the Sydenham bypass protest was heavy-handed and excessive. Think of it: driving on a dual carriageway with no minimum speed limit merited the police visiting the homes of the drivers that evening to impose £100 fines and three penalty points. That over-the-top response from the police was what created the two nights of protest seen at Ballygawley roundabout. I have no doubt that, unless action is taken by those in Westminster and here in Stormont, those protests will grow —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Time is up.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— in number in the weeks and months ahead.

Assembly Business

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I beg to move

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 20 April 2026.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Before I put the Question, I remind Members that the motion requires cross-community support.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved (with cross-community support):

That Standing Orders 10(2) to 10(4) be suspended for 20 April 2026.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

With Ayes from all sides of the House, I am satisfied that cross-community support has been demonstrated. We can sit beyond 7.00 pm, if needed.

Executive Committee Business

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I call the Minister for Infrastructure, Liz Kimmins, on behalf of the Minister for the Economy, to move the First Stage of the Bill.

Liz Kimmins (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I beg to introduce the Utility Regulator (Support for Decarbonisation Preparation) Bill [NIA 32/22-27], which is a Bill to confer functions on the Northern Ireland Authority for Utility Regulation to assist the Department for the Economy in developing plans for the decarbonisation of the energy sector.

Bill passed First Stage and ordered to be printed.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill [NIA Bill 30/22-27] be agreed.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated any time limit to the debate.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I am pleased to move the Second Stage debate on the Bill. The changes that it includes will be beneficial for our citizens and make important reforms to the current law on marriage and civil partnerships.

The first of those changes relates to the age at which a person can marry or form a civil partnership. Our law, as it stands, permits 16- and 17-year-olds to marry, subject to the relevant consent, usually parental, being in place. In the previous century — indeed, well into it — it was not that unusual to see marriages take place where one party, or sometimes both parties, were aged under 18, but times have changed. It is important that we reform our law, not only to reflect modern life but, even more importantly, to safeguard children. The first aim of the Bill will therefore be to raise the minimum age of marriage and civil partnership to 18.

The second change proposed relates to non-religious belief marriage, more commonly referred to as "belief marriage". A belief marriage is a marriage ceremony for people who follow a particular non-religious philosophy, such as humanism. The Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill will amend the law to place belief marriage on an equal footing with religious marriage, giving statutory recognition to the temporary arrangements currently in place. In doing so, it delivers equality between religious and non-religious believers. I want to set out why I, along with the two previous Finance Ministers, Conor Murphy and Caoimhe Archibald, and my Executive colleagues believe that those changes are necessary.

The current marriage law dates back to 2003, which is when it brought in several important innovations, notably the creation of a single preliminary process for civil and religious marriage. In my view, the 2003 marriage law has worked well. It has allowed couples much greater choice and freedom over how and where they can marry, but it is more than 20 years old, and, over that time, there have been changes in the way that we live. As I mentioned earlier, teenage marriage was common at a time when young people moved quickly into adult life. Today, the teenage years are more about preparation, education, training, work experience and personal development. We actively encourage 16- and 17-year-olds to stay in education or training or to enter work that develops their potential, and we support those who are not in work or learning.

Allowing marriage or civil partnership at such an age now sits uneasily with that approach, particularly given the respected strong and evidence-based international opinion on permitting marriage under the age of 18. I will give one high-level example: the UN Committee responsible for the Convention on the Rights of the Child has long advocated that all jurisdictions set 18 as the minimum age for marriage. It has advised that 16- and 17-year-olds are children and that, if they are legally entitled to marry, that is child marriage. The UN also says that where under-18s are allowed to marry, there is a risk that they may be forced into marriage or become trapped in a marriage that they regret. Moreover, even if there is no direct coercion or regret — even if under-18s marry entirely of their own volition — a 16- or 17-year-old who marries may, by the very fact of being committed to an official, long-term relationship, miss out on opportunities, particularly in education and training, or they may simply miss out on the final years of childhood. Those missed opportunities can adversely affect the rest of a person's life.

It is also the case that, where people under the age of 18 are permitted to marry, more girls than boys marry. That is certainly the case here. Every year, decade after decade, markedly more girls than boys marry. In 2024, for instance, 37 girls married here compared with just seven boys. That was in step with all the previous years. That is one of the reasons why the risk of potential adverse consequences of child marriage falls disproportionately on girls and why there is a greater equality aspect to the changes that we wish to make to the minimum age.

When we consulted on reforming marriage law in 2021-22, it was interesting to see how much support there was for increasing the marriage age to 18 and how diverse that support was. Virtually everyone who responded to our consultation online wanted to see the minimum age raised. Most of the written responses were also supportive. Support came from faith groups, the Commissioner for Children and Young People and other children and young people's stakeholders, the Youth Assembly and legal specialists.

Relatively few people here marry at the age of 16 or 17. To date, no civil partnerships have involved people of that age. Most marry in their thirties. Only a few dozen each year are aged under 18, but even a few dozen a year add up to hundreds over time, and, each year, we tolerate the risk that some young people may miss out on the opportunities that could shape the rest of their lives.

We tolerate the risk that some people will be coerced into relationships that they do not want. We tolerate the risk that some people will end up in a relationship that they soon regret. By raising the minimum age to 18, we immediately reduce those risks. Those are the principled reasons behind clause 5, which raises the minimum age for marriage to 18, and clause 7, which does the same for civil partnerships.

I draw Members' attention to clause 6, which amends the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (NI) 2015 by extending the forced marriage offence to make it a criminal offence for a person to cause a child — someone under the age of 18 — to enter into a marriage here. Many jurisdictions have already raised the minimum age to 18. In the South, the minimum age for marriage was raised from 16 to 18 in 2019. In England and Wales, that was done via legislation in 2022. Scotland is consulting on the issue. With this Bill, we are bringing our law up to date.

In the past five years, most of the 16- and 17-year-olds who got married here came from outside the jurisdiction. The majority of them came from jurisdictions on these islands that had already increased their marriage age. It is likely that they came here to get the marriage that they could not get closer to home. I am not comfortable that people from jurisdictions that have ended child marriage can come here and marry because we have not ended child marriage. The Bill will close that loophole. In doing so, it will affect the plans of only a few young people who live here. The way in which it will affect them is that they will have to put off their marriage plans for about 12 months on average. That is a small inconvenience, given the wider and long-term benefits of increasing the minimum age.

I turn now to the second change that the Bill will introduce. As I said earlier, my view is that the marriage legislation from 2003 has been operating well in the two decades since it became law. Its principal drawback and the only aspect of it that motivated a successful legal challenge is that it permits two forms of legally binding marriage: civil marriage and religious marriage. The statutory framework has not catered for belief marriage. That has meant that humanists and others who have deeply held but non-religious beliefs could not have marriage ceremonies that reflected their beliefs until the courts intervened a few years ago. The 1991 census was the first to enable people in this jurisdiction to state that they had no religious belief. In 1991, there were about 60,000 people or around 3% of the population with no formal religious beliefs. In the most recent census, in 2021, that total had increased more than fivefold to more than 330,000 or 17% of the population. In other words, there is a large and growing community of people who have no religious beliefs. The current marriage law does not take proper account of that community and does not give it the same opportunity that it gives to religious believers. The opportunity to have a marriage ceremony reflects their particular and sincerely held outlook on life. While not all of the 330,000-plus people in the 2021 census who stated that they had no religious beliefs will want a non-religious marriage, it is likely that some of them will. Given that, it seems reasonable and proportionate that the law be amended to give them that option.

Nearly 10 years ago, the inequality in our marriage law was brought home to us. In 2017, a humanist couple successfully challenged it in the courts. They wanted a humanist wedding ceremony: a ceremony that reflected their humanist views and that was presided over by a humanist celebrant. They claimed that, because humanist ceremonies were not permitted as a result of the 2003 marriage law, which recognised only civil and religious marriage ceremonies, their rights under the European Convention on Human Rights had been breached. The courts took the view that a humanist celebrant should be able to conduct the marriage, paving the way for further belief marriages. Since 2017, we have therefore been permitting belief marriages but always on a temporary basis. That was the only way in which we could address the issue raised by the courts until we were in a position to legislate. Temporary arrangements were put in place on the clear understanding that legislation would follow to create a more permanent and satisfactory solution. The Bill does just that.

There have been more than 5,000 belief marriages since the temporary arrangements were put in place. The 5,000th was in October 2025, which means that more than 5,000 couples have been able to have the type of ceremony that they wanted — a type of ceremony that was not available prior to 2017. It is clear from those numbers that a sizeable share of the population wants that type of marriage. Additionally, in my view, and despite concerns raised by NI Humanists, the main humanist body in the North, about other smaller groups, our temporary arrangements have been running smoothly. The ongoing temporary inclusion of belief marriage has not disrupted the functioning of marriage law; in fact, belief marriage has slotted into it easily. With the Bill we are now making formal and official the temporary arrangements that have operated successfully for several years. That is what clauses 1 to 4 of the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill set out to do.

One change that, some said, they would like to see is a stricter system of approving belief groups to perform marriage ceremonies. It was suggested that a group should, among other things, have a minimum number of members or have been inexistence for a specific number of years before it can be allowed to conduct marriage ceremonies. If we did that, we would have to apply it to belief and religious groups. That would be major change to a system that has been working well for more than 20 years. That is one reason why I am not currently minded to introduce it.

I recognise that NI Humanists, the largest of the local humanist groups, has articulated concerns about how the system is likely to operate. I believe, therefore, that it is prudent that our statutory framework can reflect an agile manner if the evidence shows that practices are getting out of hand. The Bill, in several relevant places, allows my Department to bring forward regulations to set qualifying requirements that would apply to both religious and belief groups. My officials are already undertaking early preparatory work, engaging with colleagues in the General Register Office (GRO) and taking note of current consultation on the issue in Scotland. I will reflect on that work as the Bill proceeds.

I want to touch on the issue of independent celebrants, which was consulted on during the process. Independent celebrants provide marriage ceremonies that are not legally binding for people who, for whatever reason, want a ceremony. They are typically profit-making sole-trader businesses that provide ceremonies for a fee and, sometimes, offer in addition a wedding planning service. During the consultation, some stakeholders suggested that we legislate to enable independent celebrants to provide legally binding ceremonies. To do so would require a lengthy consideration of the current arrangements, in particular the part of the 2003 legislation that prohibits marriage with the sole aim of making a profit. The question of independent celebrants and the implications of any change to current law that might benefit them are things that we will keep in view. However, I do not wish to delay progress of the current changes, and, among other things, the impact on civil marriage and the role of registrars would need to be considered carefully.

In conclusion, I commend the two main changes that the Bill will make. Amending the law to put non-religious belief marriages on the same legislative footing as religious marriage is essential for equality. The courts have pointed to that, and a clear majority of the organisations and people we consulted agreed that it was a necessary change. As for minimum age, international opinion is that, as long as we allow people aged 16 and 17 to marry or form a civil partnership, there is a risk of forced marriage, of coercion within marriage and of young people losing out on key opportunities in areas such as education. Once again, a clear majority — close to 100% — of a diverse group of stakeholders agreed.

There is clear and diverse public support for the changes, a legal imperative that we make the change in respect of belief marriage and a strong ethical case for making the change in respect of minimum age. I ask, therefore, that you support the Bill, and I commend it to the Assembly.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you, Minister.

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

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. I will speak first as Chair of the Finance Committee and then make few remarks in a party capacity.

Let me thank the Minister for his comments. I welcome the fact that we are debating the Second Stage of the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill. The Committee looks forward to scrutinising the Bill in detail, and I thank the Minister for giving the Committee advance sight of the explanatory and financial memorandum. I hope that, as with three Bills thus far in the mandate, constructive engagement between the Committee and the Department will continue on the legislative process.

The Committee notes the importance of the Bill and has been regularly kept up to date on its progress. Officials from the civil law reform division, which is a small but busy team in the Department — I acknowledge them; they are in the Box today — first briefed the Committee on 17 April 2024. That briefing focused on the proposed Bill, which, as the Minister said, would see the minimum age of marriage raised to 18 and would put into law temporary arrangements for non-religious belief marriages, putting them on the same footing as civil and religious marriages. The worldwide campaign against child marriage is now well known to most of us, including all in the Assembly, and is of the utmost importance. The Bill needs to deliver that change and to provide clear, robust and enforceable protections to prevent child marriage in all circumstances. The Committee noted that, in the Department's consultation, approximately 70% of online respondents and all written respondents who commented on the development regarding belief marriage supported it. None of the three Churches that responded to the proposal raised any objection. As for increasing the minimum age of marriage to 18, 97% of online respondents supported the potential change. Members also discussed the potential sanctions for breaking the law, assuming that it passes, and the enforcement of the minimum age of marriage. When we discussed them with officials in April 2024, they indicated that the sanctions would be broadly similar to those in GB legislation on forced marriage that deals with minimum ages of marriage.

The Committee received a further briefing on 23 October 2024. During that meeting, the Committee was informed by officials that they hoped that the Bill would be introduced prior to summer 2025. The Committee is, obviously, disappointed that it has taken nearly a year since that indicated date for the Bill to be introduced, but, in broad terms, we welcome its contents. We look forward to our meeting on Wednesday, when departmental officials will brief Members on the contents of the Bill, including the two broad parts that the Minister has talked about today. The Committee has noted interest in the Bill from Church groups, humanist bodies, the Children's Commissioner, the Equality Commission and the Human Rights Commission and, assuming that the Bill passes at Second Stage, will seek their views.

In broad terms, Committee members support the principles of the Bill and its passage at Second Stage and referral to the Committee for detailed scrutiny. Members look forward to working with the Department and other stakeholders and to undertaking in-depth scrutiny of the Bill. I look forward to hearing other members' contributions during the debate.

I will make a few remarks in a political capacity, as leader of the Opposition. In that capacity also, I welcome the introduction of the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill. As the Minister said, there are two broad parts to it. There could and should have been three broad parts, but I will come to that.

The first part is about changing the law on cases in which one of the partners is under the age of 18. As the Minister, said, there is now a broad and, in a sense, overwhelming consensus that the law needs to be changed to make it illegal, in effect, for 16- and 17-year-olds to marry. That is a welcome development. The Minister talked about the UN convention and the widespread global work on reducing and ending child marriage and the various kinds of exploitation and inequality that are furthered by the existence of that form of child marriage. Societies move on, understandings of what is appropriate in a marital context move on, and it is welcome that, albeit somewhat belatedly, the Assembly is now moving to end that.

As the Minister said, there are a relatively small number of people in Northern Ireland who are in that category in 2026 in any case, but that does not mean that the law should not be changed to make it properly illegal. The Committee will want to see precisely how that is going to be managed. I do, however, welcome the fact that that change is being made.

The next part of the Bill relates to putting belief marriage on a legislative footing. At this stage, I will declare an interest as someone who, 10 years ago, just before the temporary arrangements were put in place — my wife and I were still living in London, but we explored the possibility of having a belief marriage in Northern Ireland in 2016. That was not possible, but we had a registrar marriage, which went very well. It is 10 years on from that, and she has not kicked me out yet. That is proof that —.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

She deserves a medal.

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

She certainly does, and much more than that, Minister.

Over the past nine years, those who have wanted to have a belief marriage have been able to seek one in the North, but the Bill puts that on a proper statutory footing. I welcome that; it is overdue. I congratulate those who had to litigate to address that anomaly. The truth is that, too often, people have had to litigate, campaign and pressurise in order to get social change and reform in Northern Ireland. It is welcome, however, and the Committee will understand all the various impacts and hear from the various people affected. I welcome the bit of progress that is represented by that being formally enshrined in law.

One slight drawback — an issue with the Bill — is the absence of no-fault divorce. It would have been very welcome to see progress on no-fault divorce and its inclusion in the legislation. Almost exactly two years ago, there was a debate in the Chamber, secured by the Minister's party, in which the then Finance Minister, Caoimhe Archibald, indicated her broad support for including no-fault divorce in the Bill, although she said that there would be ongoing work with officials. This is the only part of these islands where fault divorce persists. It is a fairly archaic system that perpetuates certain problems. One such problem is that it can create an adversarial situation during what is often a sad and regrettable situation.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Matthew, my understanding, from reading the guidance, is that this is not about no-fault divorce. I understand that you are making the point that it should be there, but you cannot go into it substantially.

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

I think that this is vital and germane. At one point, there was an expectation that it would be included in the Bill, and it is important that I am able to bring that point up. I am not talking about something that is utterly irrelevant. No-fault divorce is critical, because it has the possibility of making divorces less adversarial when assets and, particularly, the custody of children are being dealt with. It can make for much less difficult and adversarial situations. It can also be a vital tool to ensure that women who are in situations of domestic abuse can be freed from very difficult marriages without having to go through the difficult, adversarial, exhausting and often traumatic process of a fault divorce. It is highly regrettable, when we are trying to prioritise ending violence against women and girls, that we have missed the opportunity to include no-fault divorce in the Bill. I appreciate that the Finance Minister's predecessor wanted to make progress in that area, and it would be helpful to have an update on why it is not in the Bill. I simply make the point that we are now the only part of these islands —.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Matthew.

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

We are the only part of the UK and Ireland —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Matthew.

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

— without no-fault divorce.

Those are the only points that I wanted to make on that, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. It is critical stuff. We support the Bill —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Matthew.

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

— but we are —.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Matthew, take your seat, please. I let you make your point. I gave you a lot of latitude. Do not tell me that you are going to make a point because you feel that it is important. It is up to me to allow that point to be expanded on. I gave you a lot of latitude, and I ask you to return to the substance of the Bill. Thank you.

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

I will return to the substance of the Bill. It would have been a much stronger Bill had we been able to include no-fault divorce in it. A majority of Members of the Assembly supported that. This is the obvious legislative opportunity to do that, and I think that people will reflect on this as being another failure of the Assembly to deliver timely progress.

We are supportive of the Bill and everything that is in it, and we look forward to scrutinising it. It is regrettable that no-fault divorce was not included in it, but we otherwise look forward to scrutinising it and will support it at Second Stage.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I welcome progress on the legislation. As the Minister said, it will raise the minimum age for marriage and civil partnership to 18 and make it a criminal offence for anyone to be involved in causing a child to enter into such an arrangement. That aspect of the Bill is particularly important, as it will provide a safeguard for children who are at risk of being exploited and forced into marriage, which the United Nations has consistently reported as being a violation of an individual's human rights.

The other power in the Bill will provide equality for couples who wish to have a non-religious belief marriage with those who have a religious marriage. It puts on a legislative footing temporary arrangements that have been operating for several years and saw thousands of marriages conducted successfully. The legislation has equality and human rights at its core and is therefore a positive development.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I thank the Minister for giving the Committee advance sight of the Bill. I also thank his officials for their continual updates on the Bill's progress and for being available to the Committee.

This is serious and important legislation, and it should be approached with that in mind. As we work through it, I hope that a solemn and dignified tone remains throughout. As has been said, the Bill has two main purposes: first, through clauses 5 to 7, it raises the minimum age for marriage and civil partnership in Northern Ireland from 16 to 18; and, secondly, it seeks to formally include non-religious belief marriages within the legal framework of the Marriage (Northern Ireland) Order 2003.

Raising the minimum age for marriage and civil partnership in Northern Ireland from 16 to 18 reflects the evidence that child marriage can be harmful and recognises the strong public support for reform. The Bill removes the possibility of under-18s being able to marry or enter a civil partnership, even with parental consent, and introduces a new criminal offence relating to actions that cause a person under 18 to enter into a marriage here in Northern Ireland. Given the worldwide campaign against child marriage that is known to all in the Assembly, it is very important to see that progress. Ninety-seven per cent of online respondents to the consultation on the legislation were supportive of the change that will increase the minimum age to 18. Now that we have the Bill, it will be good for the Committee to hear more evidence on that. We have the opportunity to consider any sanctions or tariffs as part of the enforcement of the minimum age for marriage in a future Act and to consider the Great Britain legislation on forced marriage that deals with the minimum age for marriage.

On the move to make the current temporary arrangements permanent by including non-religious belief marriages within the legal framework of the Order, it is important that we review the details of the legal case that led to the arrangements that are being formalised through the Bill. The definition of an "organised group of people" needs to be scrutinised, and we need clarity on that.

In the Department's consultation, approximately 70% of online and written respondents were supportive of amending marriage law to put belief marriage on an equal footing with religious marriage. None of the three Churches that responded submitted an objection. The legislation is described as formalising in law practices that are already happening on a temporary basis, and I look forward to scrutinising the detail of that further at Committee.

I speak on an ongoing basis to the Christian Institute about the legislation and will continue to engage with it, the Churches and all those interested in the Bill. As the Bill, which will formalise and future-proof marriage law, moves forward, I am keen to explore options to strengthen aspects of it, too. I am keen to see amendments that would, if made, strengthen the message of what marriage and civil partnerships mean and legislate for a requirement for a dignified and solemn ceremony to be defined and carried out. I welcome the Minister's comments in his opening remarks about the fact that it gives us an opportunity to bring forward an amendment to remove the ability to profiteer from the solemn aspects of the ceremony. Inclusion of the option to bring forward a requirement for those officiating to complete a qualification is welcome, as there is a clear need to define and remind people of the serious and solemn nature of the ceremony and all that it means. I look forward to exploring that further during the Committee's scrutiny. This Wednesday, which is when departmental officials are scheduled to attend the Finance Committee, we will commence the briefing on the contents of the Bill.

Scrutiny of the Bill is extremely important, as is the scrutiny of all Bills. A wide range of stakeholders, including Church groups, humanist bodies, the Children's Commissioner, the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission, has expressed interest. It will be important to hear from all of them in setting definitions that are firmly scrutinised as the Bill progresses. As has been said, the Bill has two main objectives, but it also has the potential to strengthen marriage law here in Northern Ireland. We support the opportunity to bring it forward, scrutinise it further and make the best legislation possible.

Eóin Tennyson (Alliance, Upper Bann)

On behalf of the Alliance Party, I support the Second Stage of the Marriage and Civil Partnership Bill. I look forward to supporting the Bill through its legislative stages over the remainder of the mandate. The Bill has been a long time coming, given that it was first consulted on in 2021 and 2022, albeit an abeyance of the Assembly delayed proceedings. I place on record my thanks to officials in the Department who have been working throughout the period. It is a small but mighty team with lots of work streams, and it has put in an incredible shift to get the Bill to this stage.

It is overwhelmingly clear from the consultation responses that there is widespread public support for raising the minimum age of marriage to 18. It is a step that is overdue and that will, undoubtedly, strengthen protections for children and young people against forced marriage and pressured marriage, in particular, as well as bring us into line with the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child's recommendations and our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. There are multiple reasons for raising the age. We know that, before the age of 18, younger people are much more vulnerable to coercion from family members, peers or their partners. Given that marriage is a lifelong commitment, it is right that we raise the age to 18, in line with the generally accepted age of adulthood, to ensure that young people are making a fully informed and independent choice.

It is also significant that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights has described child marriage as a "form of gender-based discrimination" and violence, because evidence suggests, first, that it is more common that it is young women who are being married under the age of 18, and, secondly, that those young people are subject to unequal power dynamics, more susceptible and vulnerable to domestic abuse and more likely to become economically dependent as they are much more likely to leave school early and, as a result, miss out on a raft of economic and career opportunities. Significant evidence also exists to suggest that people who are married in childhood are more likely to experience mental health challenges throughout their lives. Therefore, I support the steps that are being taken to raise the minimum age. I am also supportive of the steps that the Minister is taking to criminalise those who would arrange child marriages.

The second element of the Bill relates to placing belief marriage on the same legal and permanent basis as religious marriage. That is a long-overdue and important step forward for equality. It is regrettable, as the leader of the Opposition mentioned, that progress in that space had to be secured initially through the courts rather than the Assembly. Today, however, there is an opportunity to remedy that position and to legislate for the outworkings of the 2017 case. This is not about elevating one world view over another. It is about treating people of religious belief and non-religious belief equally in law. For the Alliance Party, that is a no-brainer. We believe in an open, respectful, plural and inclusive society where the state does not privilege any one group over another.

I also support the Minister's approach to registration and eligibility. It is a delicate balance, but the more pragmatic approach that the Minister has taken to dealing with it and the flexibility to deal with it through regulation are welcome.

On the challenges facing independent celebrants, I am keen to hear from the Minister in his winding-up speech whether the ongoing review in England and Wales has informed his thinking and whether he has any plans to come back to that issue in future mandates. From the contact that I have had with independent celebrants, I am conscious of the fact that some couples do not fit neatly into the belief marriage or the religious marriage space. Couples can come at life with different religious views or perspectives. Some wish to have ceremonies that incorporate non-religious and religious elements, and they find that independent celebrants are often the only route that they can take to allow them to get married in accordance with their own values, including a ceremony in which the views of both partners in the relationship will be respected.

If, in the next mandate, the Minister therefore has any plans to make independent celebrants more accessible to people so that they do not have to visit the registry office before having a ceremony that reflects their values, that would be a really welcome development. Like the leader of the Opposition, if no-fault divorce is not to be part of the Bill, I am keen to hear when we are likely to see progress made in that space.

I absolutely welcome the Bill. It is an important step forward, and I look forward to supporting it during its remaining legislative stages.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

I echo what everybody else has said and welcome the Second Stage debate on the Bill. It is important that our legislation be routinely updated in order that it is fit for purpose. Sinn Féin supports the changes that the Minister is making. I thank him and his team of officials.

It is important that we raise the minimum age for marriage and civil partnership to 18. As Members and the Minister have said, that will bring it into line with international best practice and be consistent with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which also recommends setting the minimum age at 18. As the Minister said, the changes are supported by the majority of respondents, so the Bill is in line with where society is at on the issue. It is important that our laws empower young people, but it is also important that they protect them from coercion, inequality and decisions that may lead to lifelong negative consequences. Such concerns arose during the engagement process. The change to the law will ensure that such protections are in place.

There is also a clear equality dimension, on which Eóin touched. We know that under-18 marriages disproportionately affect girls, and, as Matthew said, given that we are looking to end violence against women and girls, that is a really important aspect of the legislation. We support the measures in the Bill that strengthen rights and protections, and we also welcome the provisions in clause 6 relating to forced marriages. The clause extends the offence of forced marriage to here. That is important for tackling human trafficking and exploitation and is an area of concern that has been raised by communities here.

We also support the changes being made concerning belief marriages. The Bill will put us on a correct footing by addressing an inequality that was highlighted in the courts back in 2017. We believe that treating people who are humanists or have non-religious beliefs with the same respect with which we treat those with religious beliefs is an issue of fairness. It is important that we are now putting those rights on a firm legal footing through the amendments to existing legislation that the Bill will make.

Although there are broader issues that we will need to consider in the future, it is right that we move ahead with the changes in the Bill and do not delay progress, because, as many Members have said, it has been 10 years since the most recent court judgement. The Bill is a step in the right direction. It protects our young people, advances equality and, importantly, modernises our legal framework in a fair and inclusive way. On that basis, we are pleased to support the Minister's approach to the legislation, and we look forward to the rest of the Bill's legislative stages.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Timothy, you are the next Member to be called. Before you take to your feet, I inform you that I may need to cut you off before Question Time if your contribution has not concluded by then.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I think that it is safe enough to say that I will be finished within the seven minutes, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

That is great.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I will make a number of general points about the Bill and seek further clarity from the Minister on why it was introduced.

At a surface level, there is much in the Bill that will find favour with the House. There is a degree of common sense in clause 5, which raises the minimum age for marriage from 16 to 18. We arrive, however, at the curious position in which a 16-year-old is deemed sufficiently mature to be able to vote in elections yet insufficiently mature to enter into marriage. Northern Ireland is well behind Great Britain in making that change. The Minister confirmed in his opening remarks that the Commons' legislation reached this legislative stage back in 2022, with the law being changed in England and Wales in 2023. Regarding Part 2 of the Bill, paragraph 13 of the Department's consultation document from November 2021 states:

"Stakeholders have also questioned the utility of the parental consent requirement ... since it might be the parents who have proposed the marriage ... and ... are ... exerting pressure to make it happen."

If that is the rationale, what assessment has the Department made of the scale of forced marriages involving under-18s in Northern Ireland? Is that issue concentrated within any particular section of our community? Has the Department identified specific cultural or societal contexts in which that problem arises? If the draft legislation is being driven by identifiable patterns, whether cultural or otherwise, the House is entitled to clarity. We know that child marriage is a feature of Islamic countries. Has the growth of the Muslim community here in Northern Ireland seen the problem increase in the Province?

In his opening remarks, the Minister raised concern about people coming to Northern Ireland from countries that have changed their marriage age from 16 to 18. All legislation should be grounded in evidence, not assumption. It is on that basis that I ask him whether arranged marriage within the Muslim community in Northern Ireland is a concern for him and his Department.

I also note that, with the passage of the Bill, the age of consent for sexual activity and the marriage age will — for the first time, I believe — diverge. The law will permit a 16-year-old to consent to sexual activity but prohibit them from entering into marriage. That represents a significant shift and a departure from the historical Christian understanding of marriage in our society. I regret that development. That brings me to a broader point. Marriage, as a lifelong union of one man and one woman, has historically provided not only personal stability but social stability. It has been the foundation upon which families have been built and the environment in which children have been raised. In all the Executive's strategies and policy documents, I would like to see a greater willingness not merely to regulate marriage but to recognise and promote its value as a union between one man and one woman and a stabilising force —

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Timothy.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

— within society.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Timothy, can you take your seat?

Marriage, as it is referred to in the Bill, is not defined as being between men and women, women and women or men and men; it is just "marriage". I ask you to return to the substance of the Bill. Thank you.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker.

I want to comment briefly on the fact that the Bill creates scope for "belief marriage" as distinct from religious marriage. That is not my own world view, but I have two points to raise on the issue. A marriage is a solemn occasion on which individuals make lifelong commitments to each other. I do not see anything in the Bill that is designed to preserve the solemnity of the marriage ceremony. Does the Minister have any plans to address that concern or would he be broadly supportive of an amendment that did so? Finally, is there anything in the Bill to ensure that marriages do not become a profit-making exercise for those who perform the ceremony? I trust that the Minister will pick up some of those points, if not them all, in his next comments on the Bill.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you, Timothy. Your timing is much appreciated.

As Question Time will begin at 2.00 pm, I suggest that the Assembly takes its ease until then. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the next Member to speak will be the Minister to make a winding-up speech and conclude the debate.

The debate stood suspended.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Oral Answers to Questions — Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

1. Ms McLaughlin asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline any action that he is taking to increase the budget for the Mobuoy remediation project. (AQO 3409/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I am committed to ensuring that appropriate steps are taken to protect water quality and the environment, and to that end I have moved as quickly as possible to complete the public consultation on the draft remediation strategy for the Mobuoy site. The summary report on consultation responses was published on 12 March 2026, and, taking account of responses on what the revised strategy should be, it should be with me later this month.

Overall, the Northern Ireland Environment Agency's (NIEA) review and assessment of responses have not indicated any need for fundamental changes to the proposed integrated remediation techniques. However, there are areas in which further clarification and refinement will strengthen the strategy. That work is being progressed to ensure that the strategy is robust, and it will provide the necessary basis for considering the overall financial requirements for the remediation of the site. Consideration will then need to be given to the next steps and realistic timescales in line with the Department’s responsibility to protect water quality.

I plan to meet the Member, other Foyle MLAs, the local MPs, the Mayor and the chief executive of Derry City and Strabane District Council, along with NI Water and DFI officials, in May, and that will be an important opportunity for a discussion on the way forward. It is vital that the environmental monitoring programme continues to be delivered, and I am committed to ensuring that it remains in place until a long-term solution is delivered.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Thank you, Minister, for your answer and your engagement on the matter to date. There are serious issues and concerns about the Mobuoy site. What financial proposals have you submitted for the Finance Minister and the Executive's consideration? A concerted effort by all is needed to correct the damage.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I share in the Member's concern and the collective desire to see the remediation of the site. To date, my Department does not have a cost estimate that has been assessed and approved through the required public finance processes, such as an approved business case, in order to inform a financial bid. There are several reasons for that. There is no agreed preferred option, and there will not be until an updated draft strategy, further to the consultation, is adopted, a cost estimate is completed and decisions taken on next steps. A range of approval processes must also be carried out to ensure that any remediation proposals are technically sound, cost-effective and affordable. Those processes can only move forward once the final draft remediation strategy is complete. I look forward to that discussion with the Member on the matter.

I remind Members that the Mobuoy site is one of the reasons why I have been seeking agreement on an independent environmental protection agency for Northern Ireland. I am absolutely gutted that that has been blocked by the DUP. Mobuoy is a clear example of why we need stronger environmental protections in Northern Ireland.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for his engagement with us and the public in Foyle on the issue. My issue is about water quality. The Minister has already given some assurance that there will be engagement from NI Water and other bodies on the matter. Will the Minister clarify specifically what metrics will be used and how they will be evaluated on an ongoing basis to ensure that the water in Derry and the wider area remains at a high quality and that any variance is monitored and picked up on as quickly as possible?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I assure the Member that safeguarding public health and ensuring that we have safe drinking water is paramount. That has to be the first thing that we consider in regard to the issue. My Department is committed to protecting the water quality of the River Faughan. We are working in partnership with NI Water to safeguard drinking water in the north-west.

My officials have put in place a comprehensive environmental monitoring programme at the Mobuoy site, which includes site and riverbank inspections; detailed monitoring, using international quality standards; and the use of on-site groundwater and surface water monitoring, together with daily laboratory testing of water quality at the Northern Ireland Water drinking water abstraction point. NI Water monitors the water that is abstracted from the River Faughan, the water at various stages of treatment and the final water that is supplied from the Carmoney water treatment works.

Monitoring data is shared and interpreted by the NIEA and NI Water. The monitoring data is used by my Department and NI Water to continually assess any changes in risk to water quality in the River Faughan and the quality at the water abstraction point. Water quality reports are regularly published on the DAERA website, and, to date, there has been no adverse impact on the safety of drinking water being supplied from the River Faughan. It is important that I set out the action that we are taking. That has to be of paramount importance, and it is.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Given the uncertainty around the budgetary demands on the Mobuoy issue and the constraints on budgets more generally, can the Minister give us any information on his Department's financial outlook under the proposed three-year Budget and how that relates to those issues?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, John. The concern from many Members in the House is around when the remediation of the site will occur and how it will be funded. We are working on finalising that strategy, and I will engage with local elected representatives on that.

The other issue relates to funding for that. I have already set out the process that we are going to follow, but I have been on the record previously stating that the costs associated with remediation could be between £107 million and £700 million. Those are significant costs. That is why it is important that the UK Government realise that the cost of that to the Northern Ireland budget is a very difficult amount for us to bear. That is why I continue to support the Finance Minister in his engagement with the UK Government in regard to the issue. We need financial support not just for that but for other issues that are affecting our budget around that.

The position on the draft Budget that was consulted on is very significant for my Department. There is a very grim financial outlook for the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs. It is no secret that we are carrying more than 800 vacancies. I asked for compensation for bovine TB to be prioritised at monitoring rounds. That is not in the current documentation. In relation to capital support, I need support for the sustainable farm investment scheme. I also need support for new campuses at Loughry and Greenmount, and I will continue to engage with the Finance Minister on that. It is important that we deliver for all communities in Northern Ireland, particularly rural communities that benefit from the services that we deliver.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

2. Mr McMurray asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline any action he is taking to improve land management in the Mournes to prevent wildfires. (AQO 3410/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

On 2 April, I launched the wildfire action plan to accompany 'Wildfires in Northern Ireland: Strategic Framework 2025-2030'. The action plan contains time-bound actions for each of the 35 key areas of development identified in the strategic framework, covering strategic objectives of wildfire prevention, preparedness, response, recovery and enforcement. The actions will be delivered collectively across a range of wildfire stakeholders. Key actions in the plan that will assist with land management in the Mournes include developing wildfire management and response plans for the eastern Mournes area of special scientific interest (ASSI) and special area of conservation (SAC); developing guidance about land management practices that would reduce the likelihood and impact of wildfires; and ensuring that wildfire awareness and management courses are available.

Some of that work has already been initiated. For example, my Department recently appointed a consortium of international wildfire experts to deliver a range of wildfire mitigation and management work across Northern Ireland, including wildfire management and response plans for the eastern Mournes. The project will involve engagement with local landowners and a range of stakeholders, including the Fire and Rescue Service, the Ulster Farmers’ Union, Northern Ireland Water, Forest Service and other stakeholders and NGOs. To further assist the landscapes of the Mournes, my Department is supporting a range of projects to restore its peatlands, control erosion, repair paths and assist with wildfire recovery from previous fires. Alongside land management, I am very keen to enhance enforcement for rural arson, and I advise and urge that if anyone sees someone lighting such fires in the countryside, they should report it immediately to the police.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

I thank the Minister for his answer. What difference will the wildfire recovery project, led by the Pau Costa Foundation, make to the Mournes?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, Andy. The project will produce plans that will lead to increased resilience to wildfires in the Mournes and reduce the risk of significant wildfire spread. That will provide benefits for the biodiversity, landscape, land managers and recreational users of the Mournes. Specific outcomes will include detailed wildfire management plans for the eastern Mournes ASSI and SAC, based on the ecology of the Mournes, the wildfire risk assessment and wildfire spread modelling, which will inform interventions. That will be combined with a complementary emergency response plan to assist with wildfire response should such incidents occur. Similar work will be undertaken in the Western Mournes and Kilfeaghan Upper ASSI to advise on interventions. An investigation will also be undertaken to gain insights into the drivers and causes of wildfires across the Mournes.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I thank the Minister for that information, and I acknowledge the work that is being done in such an important area. Does he agree that the introduction of an areas with natural constraints scheme could support improved land management in the Mournes and help to reduce the risk of wildfires through better grazing practices and sustainable upland maintenance?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I am conscious that a private Member's Bill is going through its scrutiny process, and I know that the AERA Committee will actively engage in that regard. There is a case for conditionality to be associated with those payments in order to drive towards the desired outcomes. The key intervention that will assist with the issues that the Member outlined is the Farming with Nature package. We are continuing to roll that out in Northern Ireland, and it is important that we do that.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I thank the Minister for his update. Hardly a year goes past without a serious wildfire incident in the Mournes, and those are devastating. I want to ask the Minister about the response plan that he mentioned. Quite often, when wildfires start, we see them in the distance, and they do not appear to be that big, but the rate at which they progress is fast and difficult to contain. The Minister talked about the response plan and other emergency services. When I have seen fires as I have been driving along, I have called 999, but the response from the call handler and the police is to ask where the incident is, what road it is on, where they will connect to water and how the fire engine will get to the location. However, members of the public do not know that. Is there something in the response plan that will feed that information back down, so that, when members of the public see a fire, someone can explain it, get connected to water and deal with the incident earlier?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, Diane. That is a constructive comment, which I will take back to my colleagues and to the Fire and Rescue Service. A key element of the wider action plan is a community response, because the community will know the situation on the ground, and, collectively, we can be much stronger in how we turn a situation around. I will take that back.

The weather is starting to improve, and that is when worries arise about the risk of wildfires in Northern Ireland. We are all united in our message today, which is to urge people to be cautious in the countryside. If anyone is aware of someone deliberately setting malicious fires, I urge them to report that to the police. That behaviour harms our environment but also puts people, their houses and their businesses at risk.

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

Minister, you published the wildfire action plan earlier this month, and there is a pledge to look at existing legislation to deal with those who start wildfires. You touched on enforcement: what measures are you considering, and are you going to be harsher on those who are found guilty of engaging in and starting wildfires? Secondly, do you have a timescale for the overall work?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, Patsy. The action plan, which is on the Department's website, sets out the various actions that we are going to take forward. We can take those forward at a faster pace if we have the resources to do so; that links to budget and resourcing. There are two fundamental actions that can be taken on enforcement. First, where people are aware of cases that could result in enforcement action, it is about them reporting those promptly and being prepared to give witness statements. Secondly, we have committed to looking at the relevant legislation, and we will review its effectiveness. We need to ascertain whether the legislation needs to be changed or whether we need to do more to encourage people to come forward to give evidence, so that we can bring cases to trial.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

The Minister will be aware that there have been wildfires in the Black Mountain area in my constituency over the past few years. How will his strategy and action plan take that area and other mountainous locations into consideration?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Good work is being done in the Belfast hills by environmental organisations, and I thank them for that, because that helps us with the management of those areas. It is important to say that a number of the actions in the wildfire action plan cut across the whole of Northern Ireland. I am very conscious of the impact that wildfires have had. They have been in the news, they have affected local communities, and we need to build resilience.

The issues that are associated with wildfires in Northern Ireland are not unconnected with the issue of climate change. Weather patterns are changing, and places are more susceptible to wildfires. That is why we also want to take action in relation to climate change, and it is why we have published a climate adaptation plan for Northern Ireland.

It is the first one in the UK that involves non-governmental organisations working with government. It is a collective approach. We also need to take action through the climate action plan for Northern Ireland. It is important that we recognise that.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

3. Mr Martin asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline why the coastal forum, which he co-chairs, has only met once since he took up office. (AQO 3411/22-27)

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

12. Ms K Armstrong asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline the role that nature-based solutions play in Northern Ireland’s third climate change adaptation programme. (AQO 3420/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Mr Speaker, with your permission, I will group questions 3 and 12.

Since becoming Minister, I have had regular engagement on coastal management issues, including meetings with stakeholders, briefings from my officials and discussions with the Minister for Infrastructure.

The coastal forum is a collaborative partnership involving local councils, the National Trust, my Department and the Department for Infrastructure, supported by an effective working group that continues to deliver the agreed work programme. Key achievements include a £2·5 million investment by my Department in coastal evidence gathering, resulting in complete coverage of the coastline. Building on that collaboration, partners have also secured €9·6 million from the PEACE PLUS programme for the coastal monitoring and adaptation planning project.

As witnessed again this winter, coastal communities and infrastructure are already experiencing the impacts of climate change. Those impacts underline the urgent need for action that is set out in the third Northern Ireland climate change adaptation programme (NICCAP), which was published last month. The programme includes actions on coastal resilience that take account of the Climate Change Committee's (CCC) recommendation that the Executive consider introducing legislation on coastal change and the designation of responsibility to a Department.

The climate change adaptation programme also outlines the role that nature-based solutions can perform in coastal areas, where blue carbon habitats such as salt marsh, seagrass, kelp forests and mussel beds not only store carbon but improve coastal resilience by reducing wave energy and help to limit erosion and storm impacts. More broadly, actions to restore peatlands, woodlands, grasslands and healthy soils reduce flood risk by slowing and storing water, while nature-based solutions in urban areas, such as sustainable drainage systems and urban greening, help to manage surface water and reduce heat impacts.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I have to say, Minister, that I find the grouping somewhat tenuous. Nonetheless, I will let you off with it this time.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Minister, I asked your co-chair, the Sinn Féin Minister for Infrastructure, about some of the key developments over the past two years. She replied by telling me that £2 million — you referenced that figure — had been invested in "establishing the baseline". As I said, you made reference to that. Is it acceptable that, for the past two years, £2 million has, in effect, been spent on research and little has been done practically to protect the north Down coastline or, in fact, any other coastline in Northern Ireland?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

By way of a response to the Speaker, I am happy to take question 12 separately, if that is so desired.

I find it a bit rich for the DUP to lecture me on climate change when the actions that I am trying to take to address the impacts of climate change have been stymied by its Department again and again. The climate change adaptation programme sat in the Executive for months before I could get agreement to publish it.

We are seeking to take action on the issue. The institutions did not sit for two years, so I am seeking to catch up on the progress that should have been made. We are clear about the impact of climate change around Northern Ireland. We seek to take forward the climate change adaptation programme and deal with the issues associated with coastal erosion. The most fundamental thing that we can do, however, is to acknowledge that there is a climate change problem rather than continue to deny it.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Thank you, Minister, for the update on the nature-based solutions and the role that they will play in the third climate change adaptation programme. I should declare an interest: I am a member of the Ards peninsula coastal erosion group, and I have been out at Anne's Point, Mount Stewart, where people can see how nature-based solutions are solving some problems of flooding.

You mentioned that the climate change adaptation programme sets out the requirement for a lead Department. Will you provide the next steps in designating the lead Department that will oversee coastal management?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Steps are set out in NICCAP for the designation of that Department. It is important that that take place. It will also require legislation, which will have to be taken forward in the next mandate. A number of actions need to be taken forward, and we seek to do that collaboratively across government and with stakeholders.

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

Whilst the Minister mentioned lots of investment in preventative work and the mapping exercise, there are still examples in constituencies such as mine of South Down where people fear that they will lose their gardens, their homes and roads.

As well as looking to the future, is there any way in which finance could be made available where something of that nature is perilously close to happening to help people with the imminent issues?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I am conscious of the impact that coastal erosion has on local communities. As the Member knows, it is a cross-cutting issue, and that is why we need to designate a Department and legislate for that. In the existing framework, responsibility for infrastructure such as sea walls, roads and harbours sits with the Department for Infrastructure, which manages and maintains those assets and carries out repairs and assessments, such as those in Donaghadee, where damage occurred recently. I highlight the need for everyone, including councils, to work together. We have to take a holistic approach, part of which involves nature-based solutions. We are conscious not only of the costs associated with hard infrastructure but of how it potentially moves the problem down the coast.

If there are particular issues in the Member's constituency, I am happy to consider them in correspondence and follow them up with the relevant Ministers.

Alan Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

4. Mr Robinson asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs to outline how the current staffing occupancy compares with capacity in Jubilee House, Ballykelly. (AQO 3412/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Jubilee House currently has 358 workstations available. They include 187 for DAERA staff; 145 for Department for Communities staff, who occupy the second floor; and a further 26 that are provided in the Department of Finance's Connect2 hub, which is located on the ground floor and is available to all Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) staff.

Daily occupancy is not monitored by DAERA, as workstations are allocated to DAERA business groups and managed in line with the hybrid working policy. A workstation booking app is available to assist that process. While its use is encouraged, it is not mandatory. Occupation levels therefore cannot be confirmed using the booking app data. The booking app data indicates, however, that, on average, 51% of available workstations were booked by DAERA staff each month. DFC has an average weekly occupancy of 77% for its accommodation, while monthly occupancy averaged 17% between March 2025 and February 2026 for the Department of Finance's NICS Connect2 hub.

Alan Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

I thank the Minister for that response. Has he looked at basing more staff in Ballykelly, either those in his Department or, via conversations with other Ministers, those in other Departments?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I am conscious of the resource that we have in Jubilee House and its importance for achieving regional balance. As for increasing occupancy levels in the building, with the implementation of hybrid working it is a requirement for staff to attend the workplace for 40% of their contractual working hours each week. That reduced the space that my Department needed in Jubilee House. Consequently, my Department implemented arrangements with the Department for Communities and the Department of Finance to maximise building usage. We are seeking to make sure that everyone is able to use the building. As the Member knows, the Department for Communities is on the second floor, which will enable it to deliver a wider creation of jobs in the services that it delivers on behalf of the Department for Work and Pensions in Great Britain. That is a good relationship. We have flexible working arrangements in Northern Ireland for Northern Ireland Civil Service staff, and I am glad that Jubilee House is part of that.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Minister, in general terms, how are vacancy rates in your Department affecting your ability to deliver?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Vacancy rates in my Department is the biggest issue inhibiting me from fulfilling statutory services and delivering on many Members' priorities. We have over 800 vacancies in the Department. It is important that they be filled. The Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) report on Civil Service resourcing is relevant. I have no doubt that the Public Accounts Committee will pick up on the fact that the average time taken to fill vacancies is seven months. That needs to be addressed so that we can ensure that we have the right people in the right posts to deliver for the people of Northern Ireland.

Peter McReynolds (Alliance, Belfast East)

5. Mr McReynolds asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs when the climate action plan 2023-27 will be published. (AQO 3413/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Work is well advanced on finalising Northern Ireland's first climate action plan, following the completion of the public consultation and recent publication of the summary of responses on the DAERA website. Responses highlighted strong support for climate action, alongside clear expectations of fairness, affordability and deliverability. The climate action plan is a significant, cross-cutting statutory document that will provide clarity on how we will cut emissions, improve our environment and achieve sustainable growth in a way that is just and fair for all. It is therefore my intention to bring the climate action plan to the Executive for consideration before the summer recess. Whilst work continues to finalise the first climate action plan for publication, it is important to note that work on a more ambitious second climate action plan is already under way, reflecting the scale of the long-term challenge, as set out in the Climate Change Act (Northern Ireland) 2022. A low-carbon future will bring multiple benefits that will be achieved only by working together.

Peter McReynolds (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Minister for his response. It is also good to hear the positive response that there has been to the climate action plan. Minister, what is your assessment of the recent report by the Climate Change Committee on the cost-benefit analysis of the seventh carbon budget?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

The Climate Change Committee's cost-benefit analysis reinforces the message that early, well-planned action is economically preferable to delay and that the cost of inaction would be significant and rising for households, farmers and businesses. In particular, the report highlights that a single fossil fuel price shock can cost as much as delivering the recommended route to net zero, underscoring the economic risk of continued exposure to volatile fossil fuel markets.

Not acting on climate change will cost the UK between £10 billion and £20 billion per year by 2050, and, for every pound invested in climate action, the benefits outweigh that by 2·2 to 4·1 times. Those findings are relevant for Northern Ireland, because inaction would increase our exposure to climate impacts, such as more frequent and extreme weather; increased flooding; and risks to food and energy security. Delay also increases the risk of higher future costs. By contrast, taking forward a planned route through the climate action plan supports a fair and just transition, enabling people and business to adapt in a manageable way. The benefits of acting now are lower energy bills over time; improved energy security; new green jobs and skills; and greater resilience in farming and rural communities. It helps to ensure that the transition delivers economic, social and environmental benefits for Northern Ireland, including protection for the most vulnerable.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Minister, can you give an assurance that the climate action plan and the actions that flow from it will be underpinned by the principles of just transition?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I can, because the issue of just transition runs through the Climate Change Act, which was passed unanimously by the House in 2022. I believe in a just transition. We are setting up the just transition commission to ensure that those voices are heard and no one is left behind. It will be the first time that such a commission has been set up in law in the UK and Ireland.

Gareth Wilson (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

Minister, you are aware of your wide-ranging role in the climate action plan and the fact that that work is cross-departmental, as you have stated. The climate action plan does not come without cost. In wider society, people are becoming more aware of the great expense associated with overambitious emissions targets.

I note that your colleague conveniently referred to the Climate Change Committee's reports. Sadly, those initial reports were, of course, rejected by the majority in the House.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Is there a question, Mr Wilson?

Gareth Wilson (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

Yes. I will get to the question.

Minister, will you today commit to task every Department and arm's-length body with conducting a cost-benefit analysis of all net zero-related climate policies and funding streams within their remits?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

As I set out in response to the supplementary question from Peter McReynolds, there are clear benefits associated with climate action. The Climate Change Committee consistently reports on that. Requirements are also in place in 'Managing Public Money' for any expenditure in government, as everyone well knows.

The issue here with people pushing the mantra that climate action can be deferred and is something that we should not take defies belief, frankly. We are seeing, yet again, a fossil fuel crisis, where people are being pushed into fuel poverty. We are at the behest of dictatorships for the supply of oil and gas. We want to take climate action so that we get off that fossil fuel roller coaster and have a decarbonised society that everyone benefits from. That is what I intend to do, rather than parrot the Trump playbook that the DUP is obsessed with.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Minister, your draft climate action plan stipulates a reduction by 2030 of 18% in dairy cattle, 17% in beef cattle and 18% in sheep, pigs and poultry. Can you give the agriculture industry·— remember: that is the one that you are meant to champion — a commitment that your action plan will not include stock cuts?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

If the Member cared to read the climate action plan, he would realise that it does not; that we are not following the advice of the CCC; and that we are working with farmers to give that thriving, resilient and environmentally sustainable future. That is what we are doing. It is important that we recognise the course that we are following on that. We are committed to climate action, and we are committed to a just transition.

We are also not going to jump on the bandwagon of rejecting science and evidence, which your party does daily.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We move to topical questions. Question 1 has been withdrawn.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

T2. Ms K Armstrong asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, given that Strangford has not only the longest coastline but constituents who have an interest in fishing, to provide an update on the development of the fisheries and water environment Bill. (AQT 2242/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, Kellie. The fisheries and water environment Bill is a key piece of legislation. It is being drafted, and I hope to be able to bring it to the House for its Second Stage before the summer recess, allowing Committee Stage to then commence. The legislation is important because we are operating on outdated legislation from 1966. It is important that we bring the legislation in line with modern operating practices and that we modernise fines and penalties and standardise those in line with our colleagues in Great Britain. It is important legislation, and many stakeholders are asking for it. Hopefully, we will get it to the House before summer recess and that scrutiny can take place because the delivery of legislation is what the House should be focused on, particularly for our inland fishing sector.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Thank you very much, Minister. Can you outline for the House and for those watching how the legislation will benefit the fishing industry?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Part of it will be a requirement to publish an inland fisheries policy statement, and that will be really important so that we are able to look at the challenges facing the fishing sector today and in making sure that there is a level playing field for everyone. That is why we are standardising fines and penalties and bringing ourselves in line with our colleagues in the rest of the UK. It is long-awaited legislation, and, hopefully, it will get to the House as soon as possible so that we can complete the associated scrutiny.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

T3. Mr Brett asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, given that the A5 project, the Enniskillen bypass and, in his constituency, the York Street interchange have all been shelved as a result of climate change targets that cannot and will not be met, whether he recognises that those targets need to be reviewed so that lives are no longer lost and infrastructure projects and our economy are not further damaged. (AQT 2243/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I am very conscious that this matter is in front of the courts, as I set out in last week's debate. I will have to be careful in my response because I want to respect the legal process that is under way.

I am very clear about the benefits associated with climate action. I do not want to see Northern Ireland left behind. We now have a situation where China, for example, is the largest exporter of EVs. We are also very conscious of the benefits of clean local energy for citizens in Northern Ireland, and that is why it is important that we give certainty to businesses. The legislation was passed unanimously in the House back in 2022, and it is important that we respect the democratic mandate of the House and continue to take action on climate change, which is what I am seeking to do.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

As the Minister knows, there is no consensus around the level of those targets. The best way to provide assurance to business is to deliver projects that the business community wants. It wants to see an investment strategy from the Executive. We cannot have one whilst the road projects are going through the courts and are being shelved. Those targets are costing lives daily, and they are also costing millions of pounds in undelivered projects. When will the Minister wake up to the folly of those targets?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

The question back is this: when will the DUP admit to the folly of climate change denial? People are suffering the consequences of Northern Ireland being subject to the fossil fuel roller coaster and the impact that that has on fuel and gas prices for the citizens and businesses of Northern Ireland. We need to get off that roller coaster and take climate action and let people benefit from it.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

T4. Ms Nicholl asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for an update on his actions on waste water pollution. (AQT 2244/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, Kate. In my oral statement on waste water regulation, delivered to the House at the beginning of March, I set out a number of key interventions to strengthen the regulation and enforcement of waste water activities and to reduce pollution across our water environment.

Those interventions include introducing the fisheries and water environment Bill to strengthen fines and penalties; reviewing the sentences for environmental offences through the Department of Justice's planned sentencing review; a proposal for the Northern Ireland Environment Agency to withdraw from the statement of regulatory principles and intent (SORPI) administrative arrangement with Northern Ireland Water; seeking Executive agreement to designate the shellfish water protected area as a sensitive area under the Urban Waste Water Treatment Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2007; reviewing and updating standards within discharge consents; and introducing waste water regulatory reforms to improve compliance and compliance reporting.

The situation that is occurring in Northern Ireland, where we are having sewage pumped into our waterways, is wrong. It is a disgrace, and it is important that people back me in the actions that I am trying to take to strengthen regulation enforcement around sewage pollution.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

I thank the Minister for his answer. This is an issue that residents in South Belfast raise with me on a regular basis, and I know that he is passionate about tackling it. Is the Minister able to quantify the impact of waste water pollution on Belfast lough and our waterways?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

The situation is stark. Our rivers, lakes and loughs are under mounting and unacceptable pressures. Only 29% of our surface water bodies now achieve good ecological status, which is a deterioration since 2011. Northern Ireland Water has reported that more than 20 million tons of untreated sewage and waste water spill into waterways every year, with storm overflows discharging over 24,500 times annually. Waste water and sewage discharges have significant environmental consequences that extend into the wider economy, affecting new development, public health, fisheries, industry, recreation and tourism. The impacts of excess nutrients are already evident, including three successive summers of blue-green algae blooms in Lough Neagh and the likelihood that that will occur again this year. Evidence is demonstrating a deterioration of water quality in Belfast lough. Nutrient contamination in Belfast lough is damaging the shellfish water protected area, reducing both the quality and the market value of local shellfish, and posing risks to the sustainability of the shellfish sector.

Gareth Wilson (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

T5. Mr Wilson asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, after stating that he attended a meeting last Friday at Gosford Forest Park with senior Department for Infrastructure representatives, including the Minister, DFI, Armagh City, Banbridge and Craigavon Borough Council and Forest Service officials to discuss safety issues associated with pedestrians crossing the main Newry to Armagh road from Markethill town to the forest park, whether he shared the concerns of local people and park users that a footbridge is vital and would transform access to and from the forest park. (AQT 2245/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, Gareth. I am aware of the concerns around that, and I am glad that you were able to have that constructive engagement last week. If you want to have a chat with me about that later today, I am happy to do so, because the safety of pedestrians and park users must always be paramount.

Gareth Wilson (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

Thank you, Minister. Given that the park is a DAERA asset, will you commit to encouraging and resourcing your Department to work in a collaborative way with stakeholders to conduct a technical study for the creation of a footbridge?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I will engage with you and get a bit more information about that. We need to scope it out. If actions are required, we will not be found wanting. We need to follow proper process, but safety must be paramount.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

T6. Mr Honeyford asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs for an update on his expert review of dog breeding regulations. (AQT 2246/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, David. That is an important issue, and it has been raised with me regularly. That is why it is part of the animal welfare pathway. The expert review is finalising its work. That report will come to me soon. I will consider it and then publish it in the next few weeks. Once the report is published, we will have to give consideration to the implementation of its recommendations and the prioritisation that comes with that. We will want to engage with stakeholders on that and get their views on a key issue on which I get regular correspondence.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Minister, for your response. What further actions will you then be delivering in this mandate to improve the welfare of our pets?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

The animal welfare pathway sets out a number of actions that we are seeking to take, largely in relation to companion animals. Actions are also taking place, not just within the pathway but in addition to it, in relation to farmed animals. It is important that I give an assurance that that is a priority for me and my Department in relation to TB but also in relation to, for example, the issues associated with bluetongue, avian influenza and other areas where we need to take action on animal welfare and managing disease.

Specifically in relation to companion animals, we are taking forward legislation associated with Lucy's law. That will be coming to the Committee very soon. We will be commencing a consultation to get views on the issue. Correspondence on that will be going to the Committee very soon. It will include a ban on specific aversive training devices, the regulation of rescue and rehoming organisations, strengthening microchipping requirements for dogs, a call for evidence on the mandatory microchipping of pet cats, and dog licence fees. A lot of action needs to be taken. We lost two years of the mandate but we are seeking to catch up on legislation around that.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Topical question 7 has been withdrawn.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

T8. Ms Mulholland asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, after noting Rathlin Island's achievement of a world first in removing non-native ferrets from its ecosystem, a subject about which the Member is passionate, what can be learned from the successes of the LIFE Raft project. (AQT 2248/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

There is lots that we can learn from it. First, we should recognise the importance of working together and thank the RSPB in particular for its work in conjunction with the community. It has been a collective effort, and I am proud of the community in Rathlin for what it has managed to achieve. It is also about understanding the importance of biosecurity, which has been elevated. It is important that we keep it at that level to ensure that we do not have any further incursions.

This is a positive moment for Northern Ireland. It is something that we should be proud of and that shows what we can achieve by working together.

Sian Mulholland (Alliance, North Antrim)

Thank you, Minister. Given that the puffins arrived on Rathlin a couple of weeks ago, can you give us an update on the seabird conservation strategy, given that it links so much to the work of the LIFE Raft project?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

The seabird conservation strategy — I checked this before I came here — is on its way to my desk, so it should be here imminently. I will promptly consider it, and, hopefully, we can then publish it. It is a good piece of work, and it is important that we get it out and deliver actions on it in conjunction with our stakeholders, particularly the RSPB but also more broadly, because a wide range of people are committed to the same goal that we seek to achieve, which is a thriving environment.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

T9. Mr Frew asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, after noting that, given the time of year, the Minister would expect the Member's question, what support he has given to agricultural shows, namely Ballymena and Ballymoney. (AQT 2249/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

As the Member will be aware, we deliver support through the food programme. He will also be aware of our budget situation and the challenges associated with that and with previous decisions that were taken to ensure that we manage our budget appropriately. I am very aware of the benefit that rural shows have for the rural community in Northern Ireland. It is important that we recognise that in future rural policy for Northern Ireland and that all Departments have a role to play. The agricultural shows that take place across Northern Ireland enable the rural community to get together, and it is important that other Departments consider their role in that.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. Given that farming communities and families are under so much pressure, what message will he send to the people who attend the agricultural shows? What solace can he give them, given the cost of diesel, the cost of fertiliser and the heavy burden placed on farming families by his net zero policies?

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

The action that we are trying to take on climate change is about getting off the fossil fuel roller coaster so that people are not subjected to those price increases. The message that I would send to everyone in Northern Ireland, particularly our farming community is this: we are with you. It is important that the UK Government step up. They have the fiscal firepower to deliver support, particularly with fuel and energy, and it is important that they step up.

As Minister, I am committed to continuing to deliver our sustainable agriculture programme and to working with the farming community to deliver a thriving, resilient and environmentally sustainable future. The challenges that the agriculture community in particular faces with fertiliser prices are of concern to me, and we will continue to work with stakeholders on that. This week, we will convene a round table of relevant parties to consider the issues in more detail and the practical supports that we can deliver. It is important that we do that.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

T10. Mr Clarke asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, after noting that it is often farmers who bear the brunt of the Department's decisions, given the difficulties faced by many farmers who make the sensible, conscious decision to build larger storage capacity so that they can be responsible about when they spread slurry on their land, what conversations he has had with the Northern Ireland Environment Agency on ensuring that planning consultation processes allow farmers to get on with their business and be custodians as they intend by enabling them to have additional storage so that they can use slurry at the right time of year. (AQT 2250/22-27)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Thank you, Trevor: you have raised an important issue. I have had significant engagement with officials on the issue. They are coming to a conclusion on the future of slurry stores and how to get into a situation in which, hopefully, permitted development rights are associated with them: that is where we need to get to.

What we are talking about, particularly when it comes to the challenges associated with ammonia, is a policy issue first. Alongside that, but separately, significant effort has been undertaken by the Northern Ireland Environment Agency to improve response times. I was briefed about that again this morning: a submission was sent to me about ensuring that people are given more timely and detailed updates on that and that we improve the turnaround times. A planning performance improvement plan is in place, and it is important that we continue to deliver on it.

I get the issue about the need for us to be able to have a more agile response on slurry stores. We are seeking to deliver on that.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We will move on to questions to the Minister for Communities.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

There are no points of order during Question Time.

Oral Answers to Questions — Communities

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Question 2 has been withdrawn.

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

1. Mr O'Toole asked the Minister for Communities to outline any plans his Department has to provide financial support to people experiencing higher home heating costs. (AQO 3424/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I remain firmly committed to providing practical assistance to those most at risk of fuel poverty. I am pleased that the Executive have agreed to my proposal to provide targeted support for families and others across Northern Ireland who are feeling the pressures of increased home heating oil costs. To support the delivery of the scheme, £36·4million will be allocated to my Department. That means that assistance of £100 for oil will be offered to over 340,000 households in Northern Ireland, covering a range of vulnerable groups including those with disabilities, older people and those who are on a low income. The scheme goes beyond people who are on benefits and recognises the fact that many working families struggle with heating costs. It targets public support to the households that need it most, including people who are in low-paid work.

This is about helping the right people in the right way on the basis of real household pressures. While I recognise the scheme’s role in providing short-term assistance to households that use home heating oil, my ambition is to move beyond that and deliver meaningful and lasting support.

Alongside the new measure, I will reform my Department’s discretionary support scheme to ensure that grant assistance is available to those in need, regardless of the type of home heating that they rely on. In parallel, I am actively focused on long-term solutions for families. I will seek financial support from the Executive for proposals for a warm healthy homes fund, as part the implementation of our warm healthy homes strategy, to make cold, damp homes a thing of the past.

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

I welcome the fact that an announcement was made last week, following weeks of the Executive bickering and shifting blame. We will, however, want to hear more, and I welcome the fact that the Minister has indicated that more is to come. The scheme also needs to properly help people who use gas, particularly those who are on lower incomes.

There are many reputable providers of home heating oil, and I am not in any way saying that all providers will profiteer, but, given that home heating oil is entirely unregulated in Northern Ireland, there is nothing, legally, to stop home heating oil providers simply jacking up the price of 500 litres of home heating oil before the Minister's scheme starts. What conversations has the Minister had with home heating oil providers to ensure that the benefits of the scheme will be passed on properly and that there is no profiteering?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

We have not yet had those conversations, but we will engage with a number of stakeholders. That is a valid concern that many people will have. If we are to provide direct support to people, however, it needs to be done in the right way. We will look to have a list of suppliers, therefore, so that people can get support out to those who need it most for that particular reason.

This scheme should be welcomed. The Member talked about how long it has taken for one to be put in place. I make no apology for that. The reason why it has taken time is that it has not simply gone to those who are on benefits. We wanted to extend it to others who are on low incomes. That is where the added time and complexity came from, but, as a result, 70% of households in Northern Ireland that use home heating oil will get that benefit. The Member said that, for a long time, we were not doing anything. That is wrong, and we will have to file it under, "Things that Matthew O'Toole gets wrong". That is a pretty big file. We have been working hard, and we will now deliver.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

I call Deborah Armstrong.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for delivering on this. While others take part in talking shops and come up with sound bites for the media, the Communities Minister is delivering for homes across Northern Ireland, and I thank him for that. As he knows, given the nature of living in rural areas, rural areas feel this issue most acutely. Will he commit to ensuring that those homes receive support as well?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Apologies, Mrs Erskine — as if proof were needed that I —

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

No problem. I was an Armstrong once.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

— live in the past.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member is absolutely right to highlight the challenges that many people face across Northern Ireland. That is why we are doing what we can with what we have by putting the scheme in place. I and others have been saying, however — in fact, it was raised by our party leader in Westminster six weeks ago — that there is a need for help to come to everybody who is in need at this time. The most simple and straightforward way in which the Government can do that is by reducing the tax and duty on fuel. That would not just provide immediate relief to those who are filling up the tank of their car, their tractor, their lorry or whatever or those filling their tank with home heating oil but help them with everything that comes from that. It would help with inflation and help pare down the increases that will come as a result. We are doing what we can, but the Government must step up and deliver real relief to help people in the Member's constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone and beyond.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

3. Mr Kingston asked the Minister for Communities for an update on the replacement of Finlock guttering in the Ballysillan area, North Belfast. (AQO 3426/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Further to my answer to the Member's previous question on the issue, I can advise that the Housing Executive wrote to my Department on 24 February seeking approval for an extra-statutory payment of approximately £2,500 per property for up to 88 properties, up to a total cost of £220,000. That payment would enable the private homeowners to proceed with the works and ensure that remediation could be progressed for the scheme as a whole.

My Department has referred the request to the Department of Finance for approval. I am happy to announce — this is fresh off the press; I have just been handed the information — that the Department of Finance has now provided its approval to allow the Housing Executive to make the extra-statutory payment. My officials will now write to the Housing Executive to advise it of that approval, which will enable the Housing Executive to proceed with the replacement of the Finlock gutters. That is some good news for the Member's constituents.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

Minister, you have answered my main question. With the news that there is now a clear pathway for the replacement of the Finlock gutters on blocks of houses in mixed ownership, there will be celebrations in Ballysillan tonight. I thank the Minister for his attention to the matter. I ask him to continue to lobby for the works to proceed post-haste and thank him again for his good work on the matter.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am grateful to the Member for his comments and for bringing the matter to my attention in the first place. It is good news. That essential work needs to be done, and I am pleased that we now have the approval from the Department of Finance. I will make sure, through the Housing Executive, that the work proceeds as soon as possible.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

4. Mrs Cameron asked the Minister for Communities to outline the key engagements that he undertook during his visit to the United States of America over the St Patrick's Day period. (AQO 3427/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I undertook a total of 15 engagements during my visit to the United States. They were wide-ranging, and I engaged with key partners in Savannah, Georgia, and in Washington DC across the political, cultural, business and tourism sectors. I spoke at an event in Savannah hosted by Georgia Southern University alongside my Irish Government counterpart, Patrick O'Donovan TD, to highlight the influence that the Ulster-Scots community and its values had in the development of the region. My officials are exploring several promising opportunities for collaboration.

I welcomed the opportunity to build on existing relationships and to explore further collaboration with the National Archives and the Library of Congress within the framework of the memorandum of understanding (MOU) that my Department signed with the America250 commission. Those relationships have borne tangible results, and I am pleased to confirm that I have secured the loan of key historical records that will come for the first time to Northern Ireland.

One of the highlights of the visit was undoubtedly the special reception that was jointly hosted with the America250 commission on Capitol Hill. Over 250 distinguished guests attended, including senior politicians from both parties in the House and Senate, business leaders, cultural figures and representatives of the diaspora. I strongly believe that personal connections and relationships matter. Our shared stories and experiences build trust and mutual respect that help open doors and create lasting opportunities. In an increasingly global world, Northern Ireland must seize those chances to tell our story, which is one of resilience, creativity, innovation and deep historical links.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for that detailed answer and for giving us details on what was clearly a busy and worthwhile visit in which he represented not just the unionist community but all of the community in Northern Ireland. Will the Minister outline the cost and what he sees as the value of the visit to the US?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The total cost of the visit, including flights, accommodation, advertising and catering at the event, along with entertainment, commemorative coins, books, pop-ups and displays, was £39,727.

With regard to value, we were able to promote the Ulster-American connection in a way that we have not done before. During the St Patrick's Day parade, we got exposure to the New York media market — a media market of 8 million people. We told them about the historical links between Northern Ireland and the United States and invited people to visit Northern Ireland. As I have outlined, we have also received material for loan from the Library of Congress. It will be of value, especially to the Public Record Office and its responsibilities and objectives. If the Member wants to know more, I encourage her to speak to the business leaders and groups from Northern Ireland who were there and who greatly valued the opportunity to engage with so many people in the United States.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Minister, at a time when people are struggling to heat their homes and fill their cars — issues that you have been raising here today — you have been able to find hundreds of thousands of pounds for the US250 project, but you have yet to demonstrate value for money. It is OK to tell us what, you think, was good about your trip, but will you outline the projected return on investment from those projects and confirm how your Department assessed value for money before proceeding with all of them?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

First, the Member will be aware that businesses cases have been carried out for the work: for the visit and the funding pots that I have put in place. It is important that that is considered. Secondly, yes, I completely understand that we are living in a difficult period and that people need support. I have brought forward that support, but we should not do that at the expense of arts and culture in Northern Ireland. We got those budgets in order to help elsewhere. We can do both, and we will continue to do both.

The promotion of Northern Ireland — getting more people to visit and be aware of Northern Ireland — is a good thing. It is something that we should all want and celebrate. I hope that we get visitors who were watching the St Patrick's Day parade on NBC in New York and will say, "I want to visit Northern Ireland", or "I want to visit south Down" or "I want to hear more and see more about this place". It is worthwhile. It is something that we should do. I encourage the Member to look into some of the projects that have been funded. Many people applied. We were not able to fund everything that we wanted to. Local communities see the value in it; our museums see the value in it; and Tourism Ireland sees the value in it. I hope that she will find out more and understand the value that can come as well.

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

I represent the Downpatrick area — the resting place of three patron saints but particularly St Patrick. Will there be an opportunity next year for a Minister to visit Downpatrick on St Patrick's Day and help sell that wonderful area, which is the true home to St Patrick, and make sure that as many people as possible know about that?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Of course, Slemish will be coming into my constituency soon. It is important that we do not forget Slemish and its connections to St Patrick. This is something that we should do throughout the year, not just on St Patrick's Day: tell our story about who we are, what we have done, where we have come from and why this is such a good place to visit. We have also been pushing the historical and family connections and the research that can be done at the Public Record Office. The Open was an incredible opportunity for us. The Public Record Office was full of people who came for the Open and explored more about their history and heritage, and we have had people come back. This is a good investment. We need to continue to do it. I will happily promote the story of St Patrick, his Christian values and his connection to Downpatrick.

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

5. Mr McGlone asked the Minister for Communities to outline any steps being taken to increase the availability of supported living accommodation. (AQO 3428/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am keen to ensure that supported living accommodation is available where it is needed. This is not just about increasing provision but ensuring that the right services are being provided in the right places. Given the budget constraints that we face and the significant spend by my Department annually on the Supporting People programme, decisions must be based on where there is evidence of need. Any increase in supported living provision requires not only capital investment through the social housing development programme but adequate Supporting People funding to resource the additional or expanded support services needed.

In 2025-26, I allocated a total of £83·7 million to the Supporting People programme. That included £1 million for additional or expanded services, resulting in 124 units of new and expanded services for seven Supporting People providers. The programme now provides approximately 800 services, which help to support almost 20,000 individuals.

The Housing Executive is finalising its strategic intent for the programme, which will guide its future direction. That includes a strategic needs assessment, which will provide evidence of current and future need for housing support services and highlight any gaps in supported living provision. The Housing Executive will draw on that assessment to inform future commissioning decisions, including re-profiling and expansion of services, where need is identified.

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

Thank you, Minister, for your answer. This is invaluable work, and I entirely support it. Many people require supported living, and many come from institutional care and require reintegration into the community. I will refer to a constituency issue. What duty of care do the organisations responsible for the placement of individuals, some of whom have severe mental health problems and are bordering on being high risk, have to others who live nearby? What responsibility and duty of care has the likes of, let us say, Praxis to individuals living in close proximity to those who have those high-risk behavioural problems?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

We have the Supporting People programme in place because we recognise that the individuals concerned have additional needs. Of course, there needs to be support and help for those who are availing themselves of that sort of accommodation, and that should be right for their needs. I do not know whether the Member has a particular case in mind. He says that he does, in which case I am more than happy for him to come to my office so that we can raise that directly with the providers to try to make sure that we sort out those issues. This is a complex area and often involves difficult needs. We need to be sensitive to that and we need to help those who need it, but we also need to make sure that we are helping others in that situation as well, whether that is members of the public who have no connection, apart from proximity, to the service or those who may share that accommodation with the individuals whom he is describing.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

I remind the Minister and the Member opposite that St Patrick established his church in Cúil Rathain

[Translation: Coleraine]

. That is worth noting.

Does the Minister accept that there are areas of Northern Ireland that lack sufficient supported accommodation?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I will certainly note the Member's first comment. If anybody else has any other connections to St Patrick, I am happy to note them and put that information into the Assembly Library.

On his question, we recognise that need varies across locations and client groups, and the investment required, not only in the physical accommodation but in the housing support services, means that the Housing Executive's commissioning decisions must be based on evidence, and that must be informed by how needs have changed over time. The purpose of the strategic needs assessment is to provide robust data to help inform future commissioning decisions that are informed by levels of need.

Alan Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

6. Mr Robinson asked the Minister for Communities to outline any planned regeneration schemes for Limavady town centre. (AQO 3429/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

First, I thank Mr Robinson for his invitation to visit Limavady in March, when I was able to see first-hand the benefits of my Department’s recent £150,000 investment in the revitalisation scheme, which benefited 35 properties in Main Street and Irish Green Street. My officials are engaging with Causeway Coast and Glens Borough Council on its next regeneration priorities for Limavady following the 2024 review of the Limavady master plan.

Limavady includes several key opportunity sites, which my Department will progress in partnership with the council and other strategic stakeholders, subject to priorities agreed by elected Members and the availability of funding.

Alan Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

On behalf of the traders whom the Minister met, I certainly thank him for that visit. They pass on their very sincere thanks for the interest that he has shown.

What action is his Department taking to tackle dereliction?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

To explore ways in which my Department can support addressing vacancy, particularly in urban centres, I have asked my officials to conduct a review of successful vacancy initiatives that councils have taken forward to date. To inform that work, my officials have been engaging with all councils, over the past number of months, to agree the parameters of upscaling that type of intervention to enable more schemes to be taken forward. I have tasked my officials to explore how we can roll out the Vacant to Vibrant scheme across all councils following the very successful pilot by Belfast City Council. I am pleased to say that officials are drafting guidelines on the Department's approach to funding future Vacant to Vibrant projects. Once that is finalised, officials will work with councils to develop projects, subject to necessary approvals and budget availability.

Mr Robinson is very passionate about Limavady and the area as a whole, and he wants to see something done about those high rates of vacancy. Unfortunately, it is not just something that he is experiencing in his constituency, which is why we want to take that approach to help urban centres right across Northern Ireland.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

7. Miss McAllister asked the Minister for Communities for his assessment of the reported 53% increase in private rents in Belfast since 2020. (AQO 3430/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am very aware of the significant rise in private rents over recent years in Belfast and across Northern Ireland. While Northern Ireland continues to be regarded as one of the more affordable regions of the UK, the rate at which rents have risen has outpaced wage growth by around 16%, meaning that many renters are now spending a greater share of their income on housing costs. To help address affordability challenges, in April last year, I introduced legislation to limit rent increases to once every 12 months, with a three-month notice period. Ultimately, the root cause of rising rents remains the imbalance between housing supply and demand. Increasing supply across all tenures is essential to improving long-term affordability. That is why we now have a 15-year Executive supply strategy for housing. Shortly, I will bring out the first detailed action plan to support its delivery.

I remain focused on increasing the supply of affordable homes across Northern Ireland. That includes building substantially more social homes. That is why, last October, I set a grant rate that challenges housing associations to deliver more homes per pound of public funds. It is why I am introducing new homes at an affordable rent and why I continue to support Co-Ownership to help people to achieve affordable home ownership.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for his answer. I think that he, like many others, would agree that the fact that rents have outpaced wages by 16% is just mad. In my constituency of North Belfast, rents are increasing in areas that have never seen the likes of those increases before. People who cannot get onto the property ladder turn to the rented sector, but the rental price is much more than any mortgage would be. It is absolutely infuriating. The Minister outlined some rent control measures, such as the third-generation control measure. Is there anything else on his agenda that he is going to look to, either in this mandate or commencing work in the next mandate —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Minister.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

— that might be able to help our constituents more?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Of course, any further work in this mandate on the sort of legislation that the Member might be talking about would not be feasible from a practical point of view. However, I do not think that those sorts of controls ultimately help to achieve what we think that they might achieve. In fact, nearly all the evidence that we have collated shows that they have a severely negative impact on rents. Ultimately, as I said in my original answer, this comes down to supply and demand. That means that we need to do everything that we can, and to stretch ourselves, so that we can build as many homes as possible. We are trying to do that in a number of ways. I have set those out already. I am committed to doing everything that we can to increase the supply of homes because, ultimately, that is the only way, in the long term, that we can actually deal with the level of rent.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

A 53% increase in private rents is disgusting but not surprising. It is something that I, and many others, warned about years ago. The truth is, Minister, that you have allowed landlords to run riot and rip people off. When are you going to introduce rent reduction and rent caps? It should not fall on my shoulders to bring forward a private Member's Bill on the issue, but I am doing so because —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Minister.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

— you have failed to act on this really important issue.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I understand that the Member is passionate about the issue, and he is bringing forward what he thinks is the solution. However, as I have said repeatedly, his solutions will make things worse —.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

That is not true. Rents are going up.