Northern Ireland Assembly, 8 September 2026

374 contributions from 52 members. The official report.

Speaker's Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Before we commence today's business, I inform Members that I will not be in the House next Monday and Tuesday, as I will be representing the Assembly at the annual Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference in South Africa. The Principal Deputy Speaker will consider requests for Matters of the Day and questions for urgent oral answer.

Members' Statements

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Ba mhaith liom comhghairdeas a dhéanamh leis na daltaí go léir a fuair a gcuid torthaí TGMO agus Ardleibhéil tá cúpla seachtain ó shin. Tá siad beagnach réidh le blianta an dianstaidéir agus na dúthrachta agus iad anois ag dul i gceann aistear nua sa tsaol, bíodh sin trí oiliúint ghairmiúil, oideachas breise nó tabhairt faoi shaol na hoibre.

Ba mhaith liom aird ar leith a tharraingt ar an mhéadú atá tagtha ar líon na ndaltaí atá ag roghnú na Gaeilge mar ábhar. Bhí méadú 35% ar líon na ndaltaí a rinne Ardleibhéal sa Ghaeilge i mbliana, sin 375 iontráil Ardleibhéil i gcomparáid le 287 n-iontráil anuraidh. Fuair níos mó ná leath na scoláirí a rinne Ardleibhéal sa Ghaeilge, fuair sin grád A nó grád A-réalta. Chomh maith leis sin, rinne breis agus 1,700 dálta TGMO sa Ghaeilge. Is sa Ghaeilge is mó a bhaintear amach an pasráta i measc daltaí nuatheangacha. Molaim na múinteoirí agus na daltaí as an tiomantas agus as an staidéar is siocair le torthaí comh maith sin a bhaint amach. Is léir ó na figiúirí sin go bhfuil daoine óga spreagtha, go bhfuil suim sa Ghaeilge acu agus go bhfuil fonn orthu a ndúthracht a chaitheamh lenár dteanga dhuchais.

Tá freagracht agus dualgas orainn, mar reachtóirí, tacú leis an fhás sin agus a chinntiú go bhfuil an córas oideachais ábalta freastal ar an éileamh seo atá ag dul i méad. Sin an fáth ar thug mé isteach an Bille um Oideachas trí mheán na Gaeilge (Plean don Lucht Oibre). Má achtaítear an Bille, cuirfear dualgas de réir dlí ar an Roinn Oideachais Plean don Lucht Oibre a chur i bhfeidhm don Ghaeloideachas. Theip ar Airí Oideachais ón DUP duine i ndiaidh an duine eile acu, earcaíocht foirne a phleanáil mar fhreagairt ar an fhás san earnáil. Má achtaítear an Bille um Oideachas trí mheán na Gaeilge (Plean don Lucht Oibre) cuirfear de dhualgas ar an Roinn plean lucht oibre a chur i bhfeidhm taobh istigh de bhliain amháin ó theacht i bhfeidhm don reachtaíocht. Cuideoidh sin le dul i ngleic leis an earcaíocht, le coinneáil foirne agus le riar ar riachtanais an lucht oibre amach anseo. Ní mór dúinn cos a choinneáil le huaillmhian an aosa óig leis an infheistíocht cheart, le pleanáil cheart lucht oibre agus le tacaíocht leanúnach polaitíochta. Tá an earnáil ag fás agus is iad na daoine óga atá ag stiúradh an fháis sin.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

Today, I welcome the reassuring presence of Royal Navy vessels at the heart of Belfast, as I did with the Royal Air Force when it was in our skies last week. Sometimes, reality makes a rather more powerful argument than rhetoric ever could. There is something wonderfully ironic about that because, while some Irish republicans would have us believe that the mere sight of a Royal Navy ship is somehow an affront to Irish nationalism, the reality outside the Chamber is rather different.

Only days ago, a Royal Navy frigate was deployed to help to protect the Republic of Ireland during its presidency of the Council of the European Union. Let us pause to consider the sheer absurdity of that, particularly the Irish nationalists and those among us who berate "Brexit Britain". The Irish Government are hosting Europe. Ireland wants to project itself as a sovereign, independent, militarily neutral state, yet, when it needs sophisticated air defence capability to protect European leaders and officials, to whom does it turn? It turns to the Royal Navy — the very Royal Navy that, apparently, some republicans still regard as an instrument of British oppression. The irony could hardly be greater.

It is no surprise, then, that, rather than celebrate positive practical cooperation between neighbours, some republicans have been outraged by the presence of British military vessels. Apparently, the Union Jack on a warship is objectionable right up until the point at which Ireland needs the warship. There is an important lesson here: the modern world does not care very much about the old ideological obsessions of Irish republicanism. Russian activity around undersea infrastructure, drones, threats to shipping, hostile states and the vulnerability of our waters do not respect the border. Ireland is not reassured by her neutrality. That is precisely why the Royal Navy and the Irish Naval Service have been working together on maritime security. Indeed, earlier this year, I attended the UK and Ireland Maritime Security Conference, which was co-hosted by the Royal Navy, in Belfast. It addressed threats to critical undersea infrastructure in Irish waters. When Royal Navy vessels are sitting here, on the Lagan, it is no threat to neighbouring Ireland; the Royal Navy is a welcome and requested ally. It is a highly capable naval force whose personnel are prepared to protect these islands.

Perhaps, republicans should reflect on the rather uncomfortable contradictions that they have created for themselves. They have spent decades telling people that the United Kingdom is the great imperialist enemy. That looks rather foolish when Ireland then asks for British military assets to help keep European leaders safe in Dublin. You cannot complain about British ships helping to protect Ireland's EU presidency while expecting everyone else to pretend that Britain and Ireland do not share the same waters, the same security challenges and, increasingly, the same strategic interests. We can remain trapped in the politics and prejudices of the past, or we can recognise the realities of the present. While some republicans may still regard that as an embarrassment, the people who actually have responsibility for Ireland's security —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

— seem perfectly happy to have the Royal Navy standing watch.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Last week, Queen's University Belfast and the Institute for Economics and Peace launched the positive peace report, and I thank them for their work on that. The report provides an important understanding of where we have made progress, where we have stalled and what we need to do next in Northern Ireland.

Two of its findings are particularly important. The first is that paramilitary activity has fallen by 44·7% since 2019. The second is that homicide is down by 47·9%. That is significant progress, and we should recognise and acknowledge the effectiveness of the Executive's programme on tackling paramilitarism and organised crime in bringing about that progress. The positive peace report makes an important distinction between positive peace and negative peace: negative peace being the reduction of violence; and positive peace being that the institutions, relationships and social conditions are improving how we make peace sustainable here.

It is clear overall that communities and partners across government are working and that, if the engagement is sustained, it will be able to eradicate paramilitarism once and for all. As I say, it is important that the report highlights the distinction in that work.

We in the Chamber know that paramilitarism is more than paramilitary shootings and attacks. It is about intimidation, sexual exploitation, coercive control, organised crime and the undermining of the rule of law. That is why the response of the Executive and their statutory partners must be about more than reducing incidents. It must be about removing the conditions in which paramilitary organisations can retain their negative and toxic influence. That means strong policing and law enforcement, but it is also about giving young people genuine alternatives through education opportunities and investment in the areas that will help them flourish. That is why we in the Alliance Party have been sceptical about the potential for an independent interlocutor to persuade paramilitary leaders to voluntarily pack up and disband once and for all. We do not believe that those groups need to be made an offer to do that. Their activities are criminal, and we need to dismantle the structures that allow them to exert control over the communities in which they operate. We should not confer legitimacy on criminal organisations by treating them as political actors. The rule of law must be the only legitimate authority. That does not mean that we should be passive; we should be ambitious.

The current Executive programme is due to conclude in March 2027, and we need to use the progress made to develop the next phase of our approach. That is why the report is such a valuable benchmark in supporting that work. The people whom we represent deserve a society in which democratic institutions, not criminal organisations, have authority, and that is why —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

— we should all strive for positive peace.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

This summer, the farming community completely lost confidence in the Alliance Agriculture Minister, Andrew Muir. His catalogue of failures has annoyed so many, but that frustration tipped into anger and disgust following his Department's open-field shooting of 51 healthy cattle in Fivemiletown, leaving many healthy calves walking wounded. That was such irresponsibility, yet, yesterday, in typical Alliance fashion, the Minister again proved why he has plummeted to being the lowest-rated Minister of Agriculture in the history of the state. His condescending, sneering, blame-game attitude to everybody was hysterical and reflective of a man completely out of control. He blamed the farmers for being right-wing, misogynistic and homophobic and for being farmers. He blamed the DUP for climate change, inaction on tuberculosis and for championing the needs of the farmers. He blamed other unionists for the same, yet there was not one moment of self-reflection on his miserable record as Agriculture Minister in Northern Ireland.

On a platform at the front of this Building, I committed to tabling a motion of no confidence in the Minister on behalf of the DUP. Promises made, promises kept. Yesterday, I lodged that motion with the Business Office, and I am pleased to say that there have already been signatures from my party and, indeed, others. The motion is open for all Members to sign, so the question is this: where does Sinn Féin stand on the issue? Gemma Brolly, the deputy leader of Aontú, said outside this very Building that, as a proud republican, she believes that Muir must go. I would wager that, if she were in the Chamber today, she would sign the motion, so where are the brave republicans and proud nationalists on the Benches opposite? Will they join in signing the motion and standing up for the farmers? What about the bold Daniel McCrossan? Will his angry words turn into action, or will it be further hot air?

Time will tell which republicans and nationalists in the Chamber are prepared to stand up for the interests of the farming community, which is the backbone of Northern Ireland. Time will tell. There will be nowhere to hide, and, if you fail to sign, I wager that there will be many Gemma Brollys sitting on the Benches opposite come next May.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

I rise to acknowledge that Thursday 10 September marks World Suicide Prevention Day. As a member of the all-party group (APG) on suicide prevention, I highlight the significance of the day and the importance of continuing conversations around mental health and suicide prevention. I thank Ellen Finlay from the Samaritans, who coordinates and oversees the APG. I also pay tribute to some of the local charities, including MYMY, Life Change Changes Lives, Suicide Down to Zero, MindWise, MACS, ALPS and many other suicide prevention charities in the South Down constituency that I have not mentioned; I do not mean to do a disservice to them.

Northern Ireland has the highest rate of mental illness in the UK, with one in five adults suffering from a mood or anxiety disorder. Suicide Down to Zero, which is a local County Down charity that is working to eliminate suicide, has reported that, every week in Northern Ireland, four people die by suicide. Those statistics represent a profound tragedy for the loved ones who are left behind. Despite the scale of the issue, mental health funding and spend per person in Northern Ireland is below the average of other UK nations. Early intervention is crucial in preventing suicide, because it helps people to address issues before they escalate to a point where suicide feels like the only option. The statistics show that, of those who die by suicide, 50% had recorded either prior suicide attempts or suicidal thoughts. That shows the importance of recognising warning signs and ensuring that support is available when needed most.

The global theme of the awareness-raising day is "Changing the narrative on suicide". I spoke to representatives of the local charity MindWise, and they said that it is vital that we challenge the stigma around suicide and continue to have open conversations. That means asking direct but sensitive questions of those who, we think, could be struggling with suicidal thoughts or plans. Having those difficult but necessary conversations will help to reduce the stigma and change the narrative on suicide.

Mental health must remain a priority for all parties at Stormont. Given the impact that suicide has on individuals, families and communities across Northern Ireland, the issue cannot be ignored or pushed down the agenda. Today, I remember all those who have died by suicide in the South Down constituency and across Northern Ireland. My thoughts are with their families, friends and all those whose lives have been affected by loss. Together, we must continue working towards a society where everyone who needs support can access it and where no one feels that they have to face their struggles alone.

Diane Forsythe (DUP, South Down)

I rise today as a proud Orangewoman to push back and address the deeply offensive and baseless comments made by the Member for West Belfast Gerry Carroll in the House yesterday. Gerry Carroll stood in the Chamber and claimed that the Orange Order, as an organisation, despises women. He is fundamentally wrong, and his comments were an absolute insult to over 1,500 hard-working Orangewomen like me across Northern Ireland and a slight on the entire Orange family and community, in which women play a vital role, and on me personally. From the junior Orange, which I joined as a young girl under the strong leadership of women such as Nan Cassidy and Sally Newell, to the band that I joined, Ballymartin Pipe Band — I was there for some 30 years, joining in cultural celebrations — and now as a proud Orangewoman leading the junior Orange today, my experience is echoed thousands of times over by women who join the Orange family and share in the values of faith, hope and charity.

Gerry's attack on the Orange Order was, frankly, disgraceful. He is not in his place today, but I will say all of this to him again: it is disgraceful from a man who celebrates and promotes values and cultures across the world where women are suppressed and forced to cover themselves and where they are beheaded. He should be ashamed of his position on the treatment of women. Let us be honest: he cannot even define what a woman is. I can: I am a woman and a proud Orangewoman at that.

Following Gerry Carroll's disgraceful comments, the BBC ran his comments and lies on its highlight reel yesterday evening, spreading an anti-Orange agenda once again. Having scrapped its live broadcast coverage of the Twelfth celebrations, what does the BBC do instead for the Protestant, unionist and loyalist communities? It continuously amplifies divisive, anti-Orange sound bites, deliberately painting our culture in the worst possible light. It does not showcase our high-profile, excellent events, but it pushes out any slightly hostile story into people's feeds.

Gerry Carroll does not speak for the women of Northern Ireland. He does not understand the Orange Order. He does not understand the Orange family, our culture or our people, but we will not be silenced. I look forward to next year when the Orange Order and the people of unionism in West Belfast will speak back. Gerry Carroll will hear that loud and clear when Frank McCoubrey returns, makes history and takes a seat for West Belfast here in the House.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

On Sunday week ago, Michelle O'Neill, the First Minister of "no alternative", spoke at the terror fest that is the national hunger strike commemoration, which glorifies the 10 terrorists who chose to kill themselves by starvation. In choosing death, those terrorists made a choice that they denied to innocent people.

Let us first consider Thomas McElwee. That IRA terrorist was convicted and sentenced to years in prison for possession of explosives and the manslaughter of Yvonne Dunlop, a mum who died in a firebomb attack in my home town of Ballymena 50 years ago. Also included in the commemoration is Francis Hughes, another terrorist, convicted of the murder of Lance Corporal David Jones, a British army soldier, and the wounding and attempted murder of another soldier.

O'Neill preaches about being First Minister for all and, indeed, champions the ending violence against women and girls strategy, yet she maintains that there was no alternative to the murder of Yvonne Dunlop or Jean McConville, a 37-year-old widowed mother of 10, who was abducted from her home in the Divis Flats in December 1972. Every time that O'Neill pontificates about ending violence against women and girls, the words of Geoffrey, Yvonne's son, should ring out around the Chamber, "What about our mummy's life?"

There was always an alternative to murder. In Sinn Féin's attending that glorification, we once again see why it is not fit for government, never mind to hold the position of First Minister of a country that it wants to destroy. No one should be fooled by Michelle O'Neill or, for that matter, Sinn Féin. We learned from Question Time yesterday that the inability to secure a date to attend the Executive Office Committee is down to the First Minister, who has not been at that Committee since February. Ms O'Neill does not like scrutiny and is on the run from facing questions from a lowly Back-Bencher such as me. That shows the contempt that the First Minister has for the Committee and the lengths to which she will go to avoid being questioned on her continued glorification of victim-makers.

While other unionists are prepared to swallow their principles and share power with the IRA's proxy, Sinn Féin, I will continue to call out the First Minister and ensure that there is one voice in the Chamber that unashamedly says that Sinn Féin is not fit to hold office.

Cheryl Brownlee (DUP, East Antrim)

Today, I want to talk about something that should concern every single Member in the Chamber: the growing failure to provide very basic NHS dental care.

I will start with what is happening in my constituency of East Antrim. This summer, BUPA, an NHS dental provider in Carrickfergus, had to write to more than 2,000 patients to tell them that, because of staffing challenges, it could no longer provide them with NHS dental care. Those 2,000 people did not suddenly stop needing treatment. They are working families, students, older people and people with additional needs who relied on that NHS care to provide them with access to a dentist. The practice has advertised repeatedly for staff but struggled to attract applicants. Now, for many people in Carrickfergus, there is simply no NHS care available.

What are those families expected to do? Pay privately? For many, that is not an option. This is where we need to be really honest: access to NHS dentistry is becoming an income issue. If you cannot work, you may be entitled to assistance and NHS access, but, if you are a working family trying to pay your mortgage or your rent, childcare and bills and trying to put food on the table, you can find yourself excluded from NHS dental care. That cannot be right. We cannot tell working families that they are expected to contribute to the system but to pay privately when they need basic services. That is not fair.

The consequences of that failure go far beyond a toothache.

Good dental hygiene is a fundamental part of good health, and preventative dental care helps with problems before they become serious infections. It allows people to eat and sleep properly and to live without unnecessary pain. When we cannot access a dentist, problems that could have been dealt with become much more serious.

We do not even have the data to properly understand the scale of the problem. We in the Assembly should be able to tell how many people have been admitted to hospital because of serious dental infections, but, in response to a question for written answer that was tabled by my colleague Diane Forsythe, the Department could not answer that. If we cannot properly measure the consequences of poor dentistry, how can we plan appropriate services? We need to recognise the impact on our workforce. We have so many skilled dental nurses and other professionals who are not able to do the job that they want to do.

We need to be very serious about it. The system is failing working people. It is failing my constituents of East Antrim. No one should live in pain because they cannot access those basic services. We need long-term reform, but we need action now. We believe in a very simple principle: your ability to see an NHS dentist should not depend on your postcode or on whether you are in work. The people of East Antrim work hard, pay their taxes and do everything that is expected of them. They deserve an NHS dental service that works for them too.

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

I highlight the continual failure of the Executive to deal with the scourge of drugs on our streets. Drugs are destroying lives, families and our communities daily. That fact is often unspoken in the House, but it needs to be called out because of the huge damage that it causes to people throughout our communities. In 2024 alone, the number of drug-related deaths recorded in Northern Ireland was 251. Of those, 219 were drug misuse deaths. Another 397 deaths were recorded as having alcohol-specific causes. Those numbers are very serious, because they are only what has been recorded. I argue strongly that they may not reflect the real picture. The reality is that, behind all those numbers, there are human lives, with people trapped in addictions that they cannot get out of. We see parents burying children, children losing parents and families watching loved ones crumble and fall apart, consumed by addiction.

There is a deeply sinister side to the issue that we must all call out in the House. Vulnerable people, particularly young people, in our society are being entrapped, threatened and used as drug mules by faceless gangsters who bring that poison into our communities. Young people are being exploited because they are vulnerable. They are drawn in, pulled into debt and intimidated or frightened into carrying or selling drugs by criminals who stay safely and cowardly in the shadows of our society. We need to go after those at the top. We need to see the Justice Minister wage a war on drug dealers in our communities and the Health Minister launch greater support for those who are entrapped by addiction and ensure that people get that support when and if they need it.

We also, however, need to recognise the fundamental difference between the criminal who exploits addiction and the person who is trapped in addiction. One needs to face the full rigours of the justice system, and the other needs help. Every day in my constituency, I see families at breaking point, not knowing what to do or who to turn to. They depend on a system that is simply running like a conveyor belt and not supporting those who need it most. The justice system needs to pursue those who sell that poison and exploit the vulnerable in our communities. The health system needs to catch a grip and support people who struggle with addiction every day. We need to call out the scourge on our streets and deal with those gangsters once and for all.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I raise the ongoing failure to produce an anti-poverty strategy. The issue has been going on for a long time. At the first meeting of the Committee for Communities after the Assembly's restoration following the DUP's collapse of the institutions, I asked the Department about a timeline for bringing forward an anti-poverty strategy.

In February 2024, I was told that it would take a matter of weeks, given that Deirdre Hargey and the sector had completed a huge amount of work to pull together a range of proposals.

We did not, however, see a draft strategy produced or a consultation launched until mid-2025. At that time, the draft strategy was widely criticised by the sector for not having in it enough governance, timelines and targets and for many other reasons. The consultation closed almost a year ago, on 19 September 2025. There followed a period during which the Department wrote up its findings. The report was published in April 2026, and the Department acknowledged that it captured many of the responses that had fed into the original draft of the strategy and that the sector had identified as being crucial in order to have an effective strategy.

The Department then told us that it was working on having another draft ready for us immediately following the summer recess. At that stage, we told the Department, "We won't wait for summer recess. We will meet again, if doing so facilitates earlier action on the issue". That meeting, however, did not take place over the summer, and we are still not aware of when the strategy will come forward.

I have just attended an event that Trussell is hosting today in Parliament Buildings, which I am proud to have sponsored, asking MLAs to pledge to eradicate the need for food banks. I urge all MLAs to visit the event, which is taking place in room 115. At it, the Minister for Communities stated that he is now looking to have the strategy ready within the term. I have to say that that will be met with great disappointment by those who experience poverty and those who work in the field of alleviating poverty. Without an effective strategy, we cannot start the work of reversing the trajectory, which continues to rise in the North. I therefore urge the Department to act with all haste to finalise the work and bring forward an effective, robust strategy for dealing with poverty.

Nicola Brogan (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I send my good wishes and congratulations, those of Sinn Féin and, hopefully, those of the whole Assembly to Katie Taylor, not only on her incredible win in Croke Park on Saturday night but, more importantly, on her entire professional career as a female boxer. It is hard to measure the impact that she has had not only on boxing in Ireland and globally but more so on women's sport here. She is an inspiration to athletes right across Ireland and to all young girls and women.

Katie's retirement match at the weekend in Croke Park drew 80,000 people to Dublin. Anyone who was there will know that it lit up Dublin. It was an amazing experience and was very emotional for many people there.

I thank Katie for all that she has done for boxing, for sport in Ireland and, more importantly, for positively raising the profile of women's participation in sport. I wish her all the best in her retirement from professional boxing.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

That concludes Members' statements.

Assembly Business

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

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

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

First, I apologise to the House that I do not have a physical petition to present this morning, owing to the petitioners' flight logistics. The petition is on behalf of Pancreatic Cancer UK and its members in Northern Ireland.

Each year in Northern Ireland, some 300 people are diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Sadly, 200 of them will not survive the remainder of the year. With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, when I receive the petition, I will present it to your office.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Thank you, Mr Dickson. It is a very important issue.

Executive Committee Business

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Renewable Electricity Generation Bill [NIA Bill 42/22-27] be agreed.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

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

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Members will be acutely aware of the impact that volatile fossil fuel prices are having on households and businesses.

Events that are taking place far beyond our shores have had direct consequences for energy bills at home. We cannot control global fossil fuel markets, but we can reduce our dependence on them. That is why continuing to increase the amount of renewable electricity generated locally is so important.

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

We are making significant progress. Official statistics show that, in the 12 months to the end of June this year, 53% of electricity generated here was from renewable sources. That is an important achievement, but there is clearly more still to do. The challenge now is to create the conditions for ongoing renewable electricity investment. The Bill is designed to help us to do exactly that. It provides the legal framework for the renewable electricity price guarantee (REPG) scheme, which will provide greater price certainty for renewable electricity generators, helping to encourage investment in new renewable electricity projects. Just as importantly, the scheme is intended to help to protect consumers from the volatility associated with fossil fuel prices. The two-way contracts for difference (CFD) approach to incentivising new renewable electricity generation has been used successfully in many countries. The approach is not novel. Through our own primary legislation and associated regulations, the House will have the power to implement a scheme that builds on that successful model here while ensuring that it works for people locally. The Bill will give my Department powers to run competitive allocation rounds; designate a counter party to enter into contracts with generators; establish a supplier obligation to fund the scheme; and, crucially, require generators to make community benefit payments to those living in the vicinity of REPG-supported projects.

The benefits of energy infrastructure have not always been felt by those living closest to it, but they should be. We need to bring people with us on the journey to net zero. We need a just transition. The REPG scheme will ensure that communities that host renewable electricity infrastructure share directly in the benefits that it delivers. It is not a short-term intervention; it is a long-term framework that can support the development of renewable electricity generation for decades to come. It will allow future auctions to bring forward the right technologies at the right time at a fair price for consumers. The House will be able to scrutinise the key financial elements of the scheme in detail through the subsequent subordinate regulations, ensuring that any auctions deliver value for consumers.

The legislation is consistent with the need to decarbonise power, as set out in the Executive's energy strategy and enshrined in law through the Climate Change Act. It will support investment in renewable electricity generation, strengthen our energy security, ensure that communities share in the benefits of the energy transition, and help to deliver decarbonisation objectives with consumers at its heart. The Bill represents an important step towards a cleaner, more secure and more affordable energy future. Therefore, I commend it to the Assembly.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for her introductory remarks. Following a Committee evidence session last week, I will make some comments on behalf of the Committee. This is the fifth Executive economy Bill that has come as far as Second Stage. The Committee has taken a lot of evidence, and members have shown considerable interest in the development of renewables; the tackling of grid challenges; the questions about interconnection and storage; the need for investment; and, crucially, the impact on communities and consumers. As part of the pre-Second Stage development of our discussions, the Committee learned of a revised and much-delayed programme for the development of a renewed electricity support scheme and auction and the legislation for the development of offshore renewables. Despite the welcome news that local renewables generation has increased to 53%, it is nonetheless unlikely, given the above, that the 80% target will be met by 2030.

The delays that the Department has had in bringing forward the legislation are regrettable. However, the Committee warmly welcomes the Bill's being introduced and reaching this stage. The Bill is understood to empower the Department to make regulations for the purposes of providing financial assistance and encouraging electricity generation through contracts for difference. The Bill also empowers the Department to make regulations on the financial framework, the imposition of community benefit requirements and certain other matters, such as reviewing the allocation process and the resolution of disputes. The provisions of the Bill relate almost entirely to the making of regulations, although it is difficult to determine what the contracts for difference regime will look like and what the community benefits will be, because pretty much all of that will be determined in delegated legislation and is not included in the Bill.

Why is the Committee so keen to see the Bill progress? The answer is that Committee members believe that renewable electricity will likely provide consumer benefits and security of supply for Northern Ireland in the longer term. The Committee believes that renewables represent important investment vehicles for Northern Ireland and opportunities to keep the considerable sums that we spend on electricity within Northern Ireland as well as allowing for possible future electricity exports to our friends and neighbours in the Republic of Ireland. The Committee hopes that communities that host renewables will also see some of those benefits, whether that is through community ownership or local allowances.

The absence of the scheme in Northern Ireland, to date, coupled with the closure of the Northern Ireland renewables obligation (NIRO) means that new, large-scale renewable technology has not been incentivised in Northern Ireland. The Committee hopes that the Bill will address that and protect consumers from excessive costs while generating local community benefits. As such, following its evidence session, the Committee recommended that the House support the Bill at Second Stage.

I wish to make some comments as a DUP MLA. It is important to point out that the previous Minister informed the House that the legislation was not required. When Minister Murphy took office, he said that the scheme would be introduced within months of his taking office and that primary legislation was not required. It is now two years later, and the delay is not with the Committee for the Economy but the Department for the Economy, which stated that the legislation was not required. I warmly welcome the fact that we are at this stage, but, in my view, the fact that we are so delayed is disappointing and is the result of incorrect information given to the Committee for the Economy.

It is important to outline, as I did in my remarks as Chair of the Committee, that this is enabling legislation. There is no detail on how the scheme will operate. Private investors will warmly welcome the fact that we have got to this stage — I also warmly welcome that — but the terms and conditions of the auctions process and how the scheme will operate are vital. That means that we need detail on eligible technologies, the price rate that they will strike, the market price rate that will be struck and the levy arrangements, but also details on the community benefit. We are still waiting for legal clarity on who will benefit from the community payment.

Last week at the Committee, I raised concerns about state aid rules. I have concerns that some of the process will be delayed as a result of the Windsor framework. I believe that permission will be required from the European Union for the scheme. I welcome the fact that officials have given an undertaking that they will engage with the European Union at this stage. The European Union is known for many things, but when it comes to being able to move at speed, it makes this House look like a rapid-delivery agency.

Whilst we can warmly welcome the fact that we have got to this stage, wider delivery of the energy master plan is needed — a fact that my colleague Mr Honeyford will, no doubt, articulate. The production of renewable electricity alone cannot be the end of the process. Ultimately, we need to see that consumers and businesses get the benefit of the scheme. That means that we need grid development and long-duration storage, and all those things need to be delivered once and for all.

Clauses 17 to 19 of the Bill cause me some concern. They give huge regulation-making power to the Department. However, the Committee will, no doubt, take its time to look at that and see what reporting processes might be possible.

The Bill is an important step forward in our journey towards legal targets that have been set, but it is by no means the end of the process. As a party, we will support the legislation at Second Stage and encourage the Department to get on, finally, with delivering the terms and conditions and the auction as soon as possible.

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Renewable Electricity Generation Bill and confirm that the SDLP will support the Bill at Second Stage. The legislation is important. It provides the basis for the renewable electricity price guarantee and, through contracts for difference, should provide greater certainty for investment in renewable generation. The SDLP has been calling for that, and I have raised it repeatedly with the Minister. Therefore, I welcome the fact that we finally have the Bill before the Assembly, but I have to emphasise the word "finally" because it has taken far too long.

For several years, the renewable energy sector has been telling us that it needs certainty. Investors have been waiting, and projects have been waiting. I cannot say strongly enough how concerned the investors have been at the lack of pace with the legislation, and, all the while, the clock has continued to tick towards our legally binding target of at least 80% renewable electricity consumption by 2030. We are now less than four years away from that deadline, and the latest figures show that renewable generation is equivalent to around 50% of our gross final electricity consumption. That is, I suppose, significant progress, because it took us a long time to get from 40% to 50%. We are there, but we still have a considerable distance to travel in a short time.

We know that businesses do not make major investment decisions on the basis of good intentions. They need to know what the support mechanisms will look like, when auctions will take place and whether the infrastructure will indeed exist to connect the electricity that they generate. The renewable electricity price guarantee can provide an important part of that certainty, and a well-designed contracts for difference scheme can give generators confidence over future revenues while protecting consumers from the volatility that we have seen in international energy markets. We can see that clearly; there has been another spike in recent days. That consumer benefit has to remain at the heart of the legislation. The transition to renewable energy cannot simply be an environmental project, although that in itself is full of merit; it must be also an economic and social project. People who are struggling with their electricity bills will, understandably, ask a simple question: what difference will this make to me? Our ambition must be that locally generated renewable electricity makes our energy systems more secure and less exposed to international fossil fuel prices, but, ultimately, it must make it more affordable for people's pockets.

This Bill cannot deliver that on its own. We can create the best possible support scheme, but it w ill remain very little if renewable projects cannot connect to the grid. I have raised that directly with the Minister many times. We need confidence that SONI and NIE Networks have the resources and the investment required to develop the electricity network at the pace necessary. We also need a planning system capable of dealing with the scale of development required. There is little point in encouraging investment only for projects to spend years waiting for planning approval or a viable grid connection. Generation, grid infrastructure, planning, storage and interconnection are all part of the same energy system, and government needs to treat them the same way.

There is also a significant economic opportunity here. We have an abundance of renewable energy potential. If we get this right, it should mean more than simply producing cleaner electricity; it should mean investment, good jobs and new economic opportunities in communities across the North. Dare I say that that includes the north-west? I therefore welcome the ability in the Bill to include community benefit requirements. If communities are hosting the infrastructure required for our energy transition, they should see the tangible benefits from it.

I support the principle behind the Bill, and I want the renewable electricity price guarantee to succeed, but, after the delays that we have experienced, the Minister and her Department must now inject real pace and a sense of urgency into its implementation. Passing the Bill is not the end of the process. There will be further regulations, detailed scheme arrangements and, ultimately, the first auction to deliver. We cannot allow each of those stages to become another source of delay. We have statutory 2030 targets to meet; we have households and businesses that need greater stability for their energy costs; and we have investors who need certainty that this is genuinely a place where they can build and invest.

The SDLP is supporting the Bill today, but the real measure of its success will not be whether we pass the legislation but whether we get renewable projects built, connected to the grid and generating affordable electricity for people across the North.

Pádraig Delargy (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

I welcome the Bill and the progress that it represents. Often, when we talk in the House about energy production, generation and storage, the conversation becomes technical, but at the heart of the Bill is ensuring that ordinary people can feel the benefits of it and see that money in their pockets. Particularly this winter, as we face into yet another winter of uncertainty and energy volatility dictated by international events, people can take some comfort in the fact that the Minister has yet again produced a project and a Bill that will put money back into their pockets.

Members are aware that developing renewable energy is one of the Minister's four key priorities and for good reason. We know the significance of renewable resources. We have a skilled workforce — one in which the Minister has again invested — and we know that communities want to see the benefit of that investment in their areas. However, what has often been missing in that picture is the legislation needed to move that forward. The Bill is part of addressing that gap.

Other regions have not stood still in recent years; in fact, they have updated their legislation, supported investment and created the conditions to grow renewable energy sectors. We need to ensure that the North keeps pace with that and is not left behind, because there is potential to work across the North, as has been mentioned by other Members, to address regional imbalance and to work on an all-Ireland basis. There is the potential for that, but that is different from the isolationist position that the DUP and previous DUP Ministers have often espoused. We have the opportunity to work on an all-Ireland basis and be a net generator of electricity and energy.

The latest figures produced by the Department for the Economy show the important contribution that renewable electricity is making already. In June 2026, renewable energy accounted for 53% of the energy used in the North — an increase from 47% just last year. That progress should be welcomed, but it is clear that there is scope to do more when we have the right framework in place.

The Minister's focus has always been on delivery. People expect us to get on with the job, create the conditions for investment, strengthen energy security and support local economic growth. That is why it is so important that the development of energy does not simply benefit companies or large investors. Communities that host the infrastructure should see real and tangible benefits. Whether that is through community funds, local opportunities or wider economic activity, people should be able to see the value of the projects in the places in which they live and work.

I will touch on the comments that Sinéad made. This is a great opportunity for regional balance, because the communities that host much of the infrastructure are often the communities that are most economically isolated. This is an opportunity to enhance their economic offering. We also have to recognise the reality of the time frame, because two years of the mandate have already been lost. That is time that cannot be recovered, despite the work that has continued to bring forward legislation and progress key priorities. Contrast the eight pieces of legislation brought forward by Sinn Féin Ministers in the past two years with the one piece of legislation brought forward by the Department for the Economy in the past 10 years. That is stark. The Bill is another example of that work. It is practical legislation that will put in place the conditions needed to further renewable energy development, and it will help to ensure that the North is not playing catch-up and can, in fact, be a leader in this field. I am pleased to support the Bill, and I look forward to seeing the positive impact that it will have for communities, homes and businesses across the North.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I make it clear from the outset that I support the Bill and that Alliance will support it today. I will take my time, though, and walk my way through this, because we have been calling for this for some time, and I just wish that we had been here about two years ago rather than standing here today.

Ultimately, the Bill is about something really simple: energy security. It is about taking control of energy by producing our own and the price that we pay for it so that families across Northern Ireland are protected from the massive spikes in energy costs that we have seen due to events thousands of miles away. We already had the warning on that when Russia invaded Ukraine and gas prices went through the roof. Electricity prices followed, and businesses were hammered with energy costs. Families saw that on their home heating bills. The UK Government, in one year, spent £44 billion capping the price that we paid for energy, which was welcome and needed at the time. The taxpayer continues to pay back that debt, however, and the total spend over that time could have completely transformed the entire energy system. That was the warning and the point when we should have said that we should not leave ourselves exposed to international oil markets. At that point, the Department for the Economy should have acted with urgency. It simply did not, and we are here today with another crisis, with more uncertainty surrounding oil and gas and more volatility. How many warnings do we need before we take control and remove the exposure from our consumers?

Ultimately, the Bill is about taking control for ourselves. I know that some in the House think that the answer is to drill for more oil and gas in the North Sea, but oil and gas are not ring-fenced for the family that lives in my Lagan Valley constituency regardless of whether it comes from the North Sea. They are sold by a private company on international markets at the international price, and there is limited or no benefit for consumers. An Oxford University report stated that the benefit of that at the bottom end is about 1% of the cost or £16 a year, so there is no real benefit for consumers here. We have to realistic, therefore, about what gives us genuine energy security, and that is to produce and be in control of our energy. That is our best hope: energy produced here that is not affected by the next crisis; energy that gives us control over long-term costs. I am really pleased that the Bill is with us because it is the start of delivering that.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Member for giving way. I am fascinated by his intellect regarding the subject. He has a passion for energy policy, as I do, and Steve Aiken also does, if he was in the Chamber. The Member talks about a benefit for local people. He will know that through the renewables obligation certificate (ROC) a lot of that went to overseas companies, the Middle East and everything else. People here did not really benefit from ROC. How can the Member and the Minister assure us that the contracts for difference will get deep down into the pockets of our people and not end up on a pay cheque for an international company in the Middle East?

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I appreciate the intervention. I am not sure that Mike will appreciate being called "Steve", but that is for another day.

International companies run our gas power stations. Companies come here for profit. I have no problem with anybody making a profit. What I have an issue with is when consumers have to pay the consequences of the price around the costs. I am not suggesting for one second that a company should not make a profit, I am not suggesting that. A ROC payment was a fixed payment as well. We are now talking about a cap and floor system here, which provides a lot more protection for consumers. I will get on to community benefit in a minute, but I am absolutely not saying that companies should not or cannot make a profit. That is not what I am saying; what I am saying is that the focus has to be on our people in Ballymena, Ballymoney, Lisburn or Moira.

We have a massive economic opportunity here, and the Bill opens up that opportunity. We should be a leader, because we have wind resource, solar generation and storage solutions. We have emerging research and development on tidal energy, hydrogen and biomethane. That is all coming through. We also have the all-island electricity market. We therefore have access to two markets, and we have two world-class universities and incredible colleges. We have an entrepreneurial spirit here that is evident in our engineering expertise, which we see especially in the west. We have businesses ready to invest. The legislation should mean new jobs, new research and new technology. It should mean investment in storage, in the grid and in generation.

Energy is our economy. The Bill represents not just an energy policy but everything that drives us forward, brings opportunity and shows that the Executive can deliver for people. That is where my confidence wanes slightly, however. We are debating the Bill's Second Stage today because the scheme has been coming for years. In June 2024 — over two years ago — at the Economy Committee, when I asked the permanent secretary whether the renewable electricity support scheme would happen, his answer was clear. He said that all the legislation would be completed, and we would be in an auction for contracts for difference in January 2026. It was not a case of "maybe" or "hopefully". He said:

"Contracts will be let in January 2026."

January 2026 came and went, and we had no legislation and no contracts.

In June 2025, the Minister told us that the auction would happen in the third quarter of 2026. This is the third quarter of 2026, yet we are not holding an auction but instead debating the Second Stage of primary legislation to allow it to happen. The Department made that its number-one action in its 2025 energy strategy action plan. By the Department's subsequent assessment, it "partially achieved" that. The achievement was carrying it into 2026, where the number-one action is, again, introducing this legislation. How are investors, businesses and the public meant to have confidence when there has been no plan and little action?

I genuinely welcome the fact that the Bill has come before us at last, but, as Sinéad said, passing the Bill is not delivery. Publishing another action plan without actions tied to a time frame is not delivery. Holding another meeting is not delivery. The test of this will be in the renewable energy generation capacity that is built and connected and that produces cheaper, more secure electricity for our householders. As we move forward with the legislation, we need an answer to the question of when the auction will happen. When will we get that? More importantly, when will we first see energy that is created and supported by the scheme connected to our grid and generating electricity? Those are the dates that matter.

I will look at the all-island issue. I talk a lot in here about sharing this island. I will move on to the terms of the scheme. As Phillip mentioned, we have not seen a lot on them, but we do have some of the detail. I am worried that we are creating an investment border on this island. There is a 5 MW threshold in the terms that we have talked through at the Committee. Back in 2024, I specifically raised with the Minister why, when the threshold in the South is 0·5 MW, we are looking at 5 MW. I still do not understand why we are shutting down smaller projects before they have the opportunity to compete. For a farmer who is looking to diversify and wanting to add a wind farm to provide another income, for a local developer who has a range of turbines that might be on farms or other land in different locations or for the single-turbine 3 MW project, it is not that they will lose an auction under the scheme as designed but that they will not even get into the auction.

A few miles down the road, the South has a renewable electricity support scheme that is available to projects below 5 MW. What are we doing? We have spent years developing an all-island electricity market: a single electricity market (SEM) on one island. I absolutely believe in sharing this island. I think that I talk more than any other MLA about working together in partnership to deliver better for people, but what we are doing is creating a border: a renewable investment border. Think of the absurdity of that. If an investor who looks at a 2 MW or 3 MW project in Northern Ireland cannot access the scheme, he will move his investment to the South, just a few miles away, or to Scotland. In fact, I have spoken to various local businesses in my constituency that have done just that. Why would we deliberately create disadvantage for ourselves? The Department has already acknowledged the absence of the support mechanism that has resulted in potential renewables going to GB, including Scotland, the South and elsewhere. We are finally creating the mechanism, yet we are going to design another reason for smaller investment to go south. That makes absolutely no sense to me. I get the Department's argument that it is about administration: a lower threshold means more applications and, potentially, more work for the Department. However, that is not a reason not to create the conditions for such investment.

I get that there are genuine technical issues around controllability and visibility for SONI — I have spoken to it at length about this — and the single electricity market. That is fine — let us address it — but why should we design the policy around the administration? The policy should not be designed based on what is easier to administer. The Department's consultation material recognises that projects below 5 MW account for a meaningful part of renewable capacity currently. Off the top of my head, it is over 20%. We already have 20%, and we are creating disadvantage. My simple question is this: why not let that compete? Why should we decide before an auction even starts that we do not want that investment in Northern Ireland? This is about not only renewable scale but farm diversification, rural incomes and local developers and smaller businesses here. Paul mentioned —.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Yes.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

That is exactly my fear: that the contracts for difference and the auction will be open only to multinational companies with the big bucks and the scale, and that that will disadvantage our farmers and our people who want to diversify to get lower bills. Ultimately, it will cost them. The contracts for difference will cost them in the way that renewable energy has cost our people throughout the past 20 years. Not only will our people not be able to avail themselves of this, but it will cost them, and there will be no advantage whatsoever for the little man, the little business or the little farmer down the lane.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I am struggling to say these words and I cannot believe that I am going to say them: I agree with Paul Frew. He makes the point that I am making, and I appreciate that. It worries me that we will exclude local companies, local investors such as farmers and those in rural communities and local developers in favour of large conglomerates. We need both. I am not saying that we do not need larger companies, but we should not be creating disadvantage for ourselves. We need to make this place as investment friendly as possible. We should not be building an investment border on this island through the design of our own scheme.

The issue of the grid and planning barriers brings me to a wider problem. The support scheme on its own will not build wind turbines, solar panels, battery storage or whatever. You get renewable generation when you have three basic things: planning permission, a route to market and a grid connection. The Bill helps with one of those — the route to market — through the ability of a company to finance a project. That is good, and I welcome it. However, the other two are essential. I recently met ABO Energy, which is a large German company whose offices are based in Lisburn. It told me that it has £1·1 billion of investment that is sitting waiting to go into Northern Ireland. Some £600 million of the £1·1 billion is being held up by planning delays, and the remainder is being held up by constraints in the grid and delays in upgrading our grid. If you think about that —.

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

I thank the Member for giving way. He makes a very interesting point. Does he agree with me that, in local council authorities and the Department, there seems to be a very clear lack of understanding of planning and of the complexities of some of those applications and that that is leading to some of the delays? There needs to be a more streamlined system for planning for such projects.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member. I agree, and I will touch on that issue now. I will answer him in what I say.

If we want money to come here, we need to have a system in place that delivers on all of that. I have said many times — Phillip mentioned it earlier, and I want to hear it from the Minister — that we need the Department to finally bring forward the master plan. We cannot let it become a developer-led project; it needs to be controlled, and the Department needs to lay out a pathway that shows the areas, partly for the planning system. The areas that are absolutely acceptable can be shown, and the areas that are environmental protection zones or areas of natural beauty can also be highlighted, which will bring the benefit of giving the community confidence, and it will also give the planners confidence to pass the permissions more quickly. The DFE master plan is essential for the Utility Regulator, SONI and NIE Networks to ensure that we are building a grid ahead of schedule to a plan that allows us to realise the benefits of the legislation, delivers for people and is Department-led, not developer-led.

We know where a lot of the energy infrastructure should and could be, and it could be mapped out. The councils could, in the same way that they do their local development plans, show the areas where development will be positive, what it looks like and where it is not feasible, and that will give the community confidence.

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

Will the Member give way?

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Yes. Go for it.

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

I appreciate the Member's point about the project being Department-led. Unfortunately, the lessons of the past show that the private sector has been 10 miles ahead of the Department on every move. It is worrying, on a competence issue, that the public's perception is that the Department for the Economy does not have its house in order when it comes to those projects, and RHI is a classic example of a mess.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Yes. RHI closed yesterday, which is positive. We will take the win because the Department has done a good job of closing the scheme. I am absolutely not here to bash the Department for the sake of bashing the Department; I am here to make sure that we deliver for people.

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

You are too nice.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Too nice? I am always nice.

We are constantly waiting for investment to arrive before we start thinking about the infrastructure that is needed to connect it, and that is my point. We do not need discussions about planning; we need reform to reduce the time taken to process applications. Maybe the Minister can bring forward any work that is happening with her colleague in DFI to enable the change. The legislation and the auctions are good, but the wider point will be how we connect to the grid.

RHI has been mentioned, and there is a ghost that we need to address. We need to think about the learning from RHI because we have dispatch down rates of about 20% for energy that is created but not used. Without connecting it all together and having a plan, we will be, effectively, creating more energy without the infrastructure to use it, and the North/South interconnector is a prime example of that. We talk about the all-Ireland energy market, which is one single energy market, North and South, and we are connected through that every day, yet we spent around two decades trying to connect one part of an island to another with a copper wire, and two decades is two decades too long. If we are to become a renewable energy leader and develop more significant amounts of renewable electricity, we have to reduce the amount of dispatch down energy that is created and wasted. If we want to attract billions of pounds of investment, we have to put the basic infrastructure in place to allow the energy to be used, and the North/South interconnector is absolutely critical to that. There has been political opposition to the North/South interconnector over the years, including from the Minister's party in the South, but it was not alone. In this case, the South is the blockage to its being built. We cannot hold back on it. It has to be delivered on this island to allow the scale of renewables generation that we are asking to be built here.

We also talk about the Scottish connection. All that interconnection is absolutely vital to strengthen our security of supply and the ability to import when we need to. If we do not get it right, we are incentivising local renewable generation. If it does not hit that grid and is not used, there is potential to incentivise energy that is not used for the public good. That is a concern if the interconnector is not brought about. It brings me back to my point that we need a plan-led approach from the Department that allows the scheme to come forward, allows the planning system to be reformed to enable it, allows the grid to be built ahead of time and allows storage to be installed. We need the North/South interconnector. We need the connector to Scotland. We need one system, one strategy and one direction of travel; otherwise, we risk spending consumers' money on incentivising new generation or different generation that is not or cannot be connected. If RHI has taught us anything, it is that we have to properly think through the incentive. The incentive should not come before the consequences. They need to be thought through now. The system needs to be developed, and the whole system needs to be delivered at the same time.

I want to pick up on who benefits, because the whole system has to start and finish with the consumer. The environmental benefits are essential. I do not disagree with that. The legal targets, as Phillip Brett mentioned, are there to be met, and we absolutely need to meet those. However, it all comes down to creating better for people and people paying less for their energy and the small businesses having certainty over energy costs moving forward and manufacturers looking at this region as an affordable place to invest because they have security of energy supply moving forward, be that in the west of the Province, which was talked about. That is what success looks like. Cap and floor is the mechanism to enable that. That is great, and I support that.

The thing that I am concerned about and will flag now is clause 12(3). This is around where the money goes. The Bill says that the Department may make regulations requiring a benefit to be secured for customers. My question is around the word "may". If consumers underwrite the downside, they must also get the upside. That should not be an option. I want the Minister to explain the thinking around that, because I want to make sure that the benefit finds its way back to people in the communities. If we are asking communities to host turbines, solar farms, substation pylons, or whatever that infrastructure looks like, those communities should benefit. I welcome the provisions around community benefit, but we will tease out the detail of what that means, who gets it, how much they will get, how much it will reduce bills for local people in the community and how that will happen. Community benefit cannot be another promise that then gets defined down the road. It needs to be built in to bring confidence into this now.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way on that point that he has just raised?

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

Yes.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

The Bill does not talk about the community or neighbours; it talks about "customers", and those customers could be anywhere in Northern Ireland. You could get a contract for difference, a payment and a benefit for having a plant, a wind farm or some other renewable energy base in a mountain range or valley in an area of natural beauty, but the neighbours and the people who live in that valley or mountain range will be impacted on and will not get the benefit; the customers of the agency will benefit from it.

David Honeyford (Alliance, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for that. That is the point that I am making. That is that the bit that we need to tease out. The Minister can address that. If we are asking a community to host it, the local community should feel the benefit of it. That is the point that I am making.

I want to finish on a positive. This is about opportunity. I genuinely believe that it can become one of the biggest economic opportunities that we have here. For too long, we have imported energy and accepted whatever price the market told us. This allows us to control the cost and generate our own energy. For that, I welcome the Bill, Minister, and thank you for introducing it. We need, however, to look at the grid, the planning system and the delivery of the North/South interconnector, We need to secure that investment in jobs and build the skills around that so that colleges and the whole skills piece are linked within it as we see growth. We need to bring in that investment and, as I said in reply to Paul, bring the benefit back to the local community and consumers here. We have the wind, the technology and the opportunity. Let us now action the ambition to see that delivered. On behalf of the Alliance Party, I thank the Minister. If she could address those points, I would really appreciate it.

Diana Armstrong (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As a former member of the Economy Committee, I want to make an address before my colleague Mike Nesbitt joins the Committee for his inaugural meeting tomorrow.

I welcome the Renewable Electricity Generation Bill as an important step towards placing Northern Ireland in a stronger position to generate renewable electricity sustainably. The Ulster Unionist Party supports the direction of travel despite its having taken such a long time to design a new renewable electricity scheme. However, that support cannot mean that there is a blank cheque. Any new scheme must not become the next RHI.

At a recent Economy Committee meeting, the Department could not give proper assurance that the 80% renewable electricity target would be met by 2030. While that should focus minds, it should not lead us to rush legislation or hand over broad powers without proper scrutiny. The Bill gives the Department significant powers over contracts for difference, including eligibility, allocation, pricing and the supplier levy. Where such powers are being granted, transparency and Assembly oversight must remain central. There must be no confusion about how the strike prices are set, how contracts are awarded or what the scheme will ultimately cost consumers. While the levy sits on electricity suppliers, we must be alive to the risk of those costs being passed on to households and businesses. Renewable electricity should deliver greater affordability and security, not simply another cost within the energy system.

Equally, where market prices rise above the strike price and the money flows back through the scheme, consumers should see a clear and tangible benefit. I also welcome the provisions for community benefit. However, the detail on eligibility and payments must be clear and fair. I hope that the Minister can expand on that in her summing up.

None of that is to understate the opportunity. Investors have waited long enough. If we do not get the scheme moving, their money will go elsewhere. If we hit the 80% target by 2030, we are talking about £479 million in GVA a year, £118 million in labour income and over 3,000 jobs, as predicted. That prize is real, and the Ulster Unionist Party wants to see it delivered.

We must also ensure that our grid can support the generation that the Bill seeks to encourage. There is little value in incentivising new projects if they cannot secure timely grid connections. Grid investment and connection reform must progress alongside the legislation. The Department must demonstrate value for money, protect consumers and provide transparency at every stage. Get that balance right and the Bill can deliver the investment that we need while protecting the people who ultimately pay for our electricity system. The Ulster Unionist Party will support the Bill's progressing to Committee Stage.

Kate Nicholl (Alliance, Belfast South)

We are very lucky to have an energy nerd in the Alliance Party. I benefit greatly from my colleague David Honeyford's expertise in this, and it is good to know that he has company in other parties. Over the summer, I spent quite a bit of time trying to get up to the same stage as him. I met a number of renewable energy companies in my constituency and across Northern Ireland. The need for the Bill came up time and time again. Its purpose is relatively straightforward, but it is absolutely vital for our long-term energy security, giving us the ability to protect consumers from price volatility and laying the foundations of a more sustainable energy supply. It is about cleaner energy but also driving bills down.

The Bill enables the Department to establish the much-needed and long-awaited renewable energy support scheme. There has not been one meeting at which that issue has not been raised, and having the support scheme in place is fundamental for our energy sector, because it will provide security for future investment and lead to the transformation of our energy mix. A number of Members have already spoken about investor confidence and how they have been waiting for the scheme and also about how the delay has had an impact when they go back to the investors. Therefore, it is really welcome that we are now on it.

The contracts for difference model — the auction process proposed in the Bill — already works well in Great Britain and other parts of Europe. I know that we will get into the specific details of the clauses as Bill progresses, but the community benefit aspect laid out in clause 13 is a really important aspect of the Bill, and I am sure that it will command widespread support and discussion across the House. It has already been mentioned that it is really important that we get the Bill passed in this mandate. There really cannot be any more delays. I have noticed that, when we talk about energy, there is a lot of conversation about whether we will meet our 80% target by 2030, and I very much hope that we will. As Alliance MLAs, we will do everything that we can to move in that direction, including by supporting the Bill.

Connected to the Bill and the schemes that will emerge from it, we need to make sure that we have the correct skills mix. My colleague touched on that. I am particularly interested in that area of the portfolio in order that we deliver the targets that we have set. Without the right people and the right skills, we will not be able to make the progress that we need to make. I will focus on that a lot. I just want to get that on the record at this stage. Investors and major players in the energy sector have a range of options for where they will invest, and we need to make sure that our policy and legislative framework provide confidence and certainty to make sure that we are winning investment for Northern Ireland, creating jobs, delivering cleaner energy and bringing down bills. Some really compelling stories are being told across Northern Ireland, and really exciting businesses have been set up. There is that innovation and ambition, but, so often, the piece that is missing is the ambition and delivery from our side.

The Bill alone will not achieve all those things, but it will provide groundwork for the regulations and the future scheme that will help us to move in the right direction. It is technical, but it will have a real impact on people's lives. Energy is not always the most exciting topic, and it does not always get media attention, but it should, because it is one of the most important things. As my colleague said, it affects the economy, and the Bill is a positive development. I look forward to continuing the work on the Bill and scrutinising it in the coming stages, including when it comes to Committee.

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

On behalf of the SDLP, I welcome the Bill and support its progression to this stage in the House. Northern Ireland has an enormous economic opportunity before us. Renewable energy, as Members have said, should not simply be viewed in isolation through a prism of climate targets. It is also a huge and significant economic opportunity — an opportunity to create considerable jobs, attract investment, support businesses, strengthen our rural economy and give households and employers greater protection from volatile global energy prices.

Recent years have demonstrated just how exposed we are to that. War, international instability and disruption to global energy markets can very quickly translate into higher electricity bills for a family in Strabane or a business in Omagh. We cannot control international energy shocks, but we can control how exposed our people and society are to them. The more energy we generate here from our own renewable resources and at predictable long-term prices, the more resilient our economy can become. That matters enormously to businesses, because margins matter. For manufacturers, hospitality, retail, farming and, particularly, our agri-food sector, energy can be a significant operating cost and, indeed, has proven so over recent times. A sudden spike in prices can wipe out margins almost overnight, so energy policy is also economic policy and business policy. If Northern Ireland can offer businesses greater certainty and competitive energy costs, that can become part of our economic proposition. It can protect jobs, help existing businesses to expand and make Northern Ireland a more attractive place to invest in. That is why the SDLP supports the principle behind this important legislation.

Ambition, however, must be matched by delivery.

I declare an interest as the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee. The report from the Northern Ireland Audit Office (NIAO) on the energy strategy should serve as a wake-up call to the Department for the Economy. It found that around £107 million had been spent since 2020, yet progress against key targets was lagging behind considerably. By March 2025, just 90 GWh of energy savings had been delivered against an 8,000 GWh target. At that point, renewable electricity generation stood at 45% against the statutory target of at least 80% by 2030.

It is important to point out that progress has been made, and progress should always be welcomed, but we could be much further ahead. The Audit Office's central criticism remains, however, that the pace of delivery from the Department for the Economy's energy division has been too slow. We have spent years talking about Northern Ireland's renewable energy potential, but we now need to realise that potential, and that means removing the barriers that prevent businesses from investing. As Members have highlighted, one of the biggest barriers is the planning system. I am not in any way advocating for a weakening of environmental protections or proper community consultation, but rigorous planning does not have to mean slow planning. Slow planning costs us all. Businesses that are prepared to invest millions of pounds, create employment and generate energy and opportunities here cannot be expected to wait years, trapped between planning authorities, statutory consultees and Departments, with one contradicting the other while MLAs in this House chase Departments to get responses. That is entirely unacceptable. On countless occasions, investors in the North have said that they cannot get over how difficult it is to get through the processes here.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will indeed.

Peter Martin (DUP, North Down)

The Member is always very kind with his time. He is right in what he says. Does he agree that the propensity for judicial reviews here and, as he said, the fact that some planning decisions can take between five and nine years disincentivises businesses from outside the UK from investing in Northern Ireland, which would create jobs? That is something that the Department for Infrastructure in particular needs to get right.

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

Absolutely. That continues to be the case, and that is an important point. Everyone has a right to object to anything about which they may have concerns by way of a judicial review. To digress slightly, the situation with the A5, for instance, causes me a huge amount of frustration, in that a small number of people can block an infrastructure project that will benefit the majority of people. The measure and the balance is not right, and the same potentially applies to projects such as this.

As I said, we need to remove the barriers that prevent businesses from investing, and the planning system is key to doing that. Businesses that are prepared to invest all that money continue to criticise the system here for being too slow. The Minister for the Economy is here and is listening, as are departmental officials. We need clear timelines, faster statutory consultation, properly resourced planning services and much better coordination across government. The matter is not something that sits solely with the Department for the Economy. Rather, it is an Executive-wide priority, and it should be treated as such. The same applies to the electricity grid. There is little point in encouraging investment in renewable generation in this place if, at the very end of the process, a project cannot secure a viable connection. My friend Diana Armstrong made that point very well. Planning, grid infrastructure and energy policy must move together in order to achieve the goal.

I also want to see ambition around the types of renewable energy that we support. We have a great opportunity — I would argue a unique one — in that way. Wind and solar energy will undoubtedly play a major role, and they do, but they cannot be the entire story. We need to be more ambitious. Northern Ireland has a huge agriculture and agri-food sector, which provides significant, increased opportunities around anaerobic digestion, biogas and biomethane. Agricultural food and other appropriate organic waste can be converted through anaerobic digestion into biogas, which can generate electricity and heat, or be upgraded to biomethane for injection into our gas network. That is not the technology of the distant future. Rather, it is already happening in our communities. It is happening in my constituency of West Tyrone, where biomethane is already being injected into the Northern Ireland gas network.

We should be asking ourselves how we can turn that potential into an industry and a future for this place. Can we turn waste into energy? Look at how our councils have been managing waste. Where is the opportunity there? Where is the community benefit for our people? Exploiting that very important opportunity and turning waste into energy would feed into a community benefit on the ground and save local authorities and, indeed, ratepayers a huge amount of money. Can we create additional income streams for farmers? Can we create new rural businesses and new opportunities for places in west Tyrone, Fermanagh and elsewhere? Can we support our agri-food sector while addressing some of the environmental challenges facing agriculture with measures that are not so convoluted and full of hurdles? Can we keep in the Northern Ireland economy more of the money that we currently spend on importing energy? I believe that the answer to those questions can and must be yes.

We should continue exploring the role of sustainable biofuels, particularly for businesses and sectors that are difficult or prohibitively expensive to electrify. We should recognise the contribution of small-scale hydro and remain open to emerging technologies in that regard. That is particularly important, because this legislation will not be stuck in time; it has to emerge and be forward-looking. We should not design today's legislation around today's technology. The framework must be flexible enough to accommodate the innovation of tomorrow. We are in a fast-changing system.

Another important issue needs clarification, and I would welcome that from the Minister in her remarks. What will happen to Northern Ireland's existing renewable generators? The Northern Ireland renewables obligation has supported renewable generation for many years. While the scheme has been closed to new generating capacity for some years, existing accredited generators have continued to receive their renewable obligations certificates during their applicable support periods. Northern Ireland has a particularly significant number of small renewable generators who remain in a place of uncertainty. They are not all multinational energy companies, as Mr Frew pointed out. They include our farmers, small businesses, landowners and rural entrepreneurs, who invested their own money in renewable generation and were miles ahead of Departments here.

As individual ROC entitlements eventually expire, we need to know what happens next. That is a critical question that the Department needs to address. The turbine does not suddenly stop because the ROC support ends. A hydro scheme does not suddenly stop producing electricity. Energy-producing plants do not suddenly come to a halt. What is the pathway for those generators? Can they access the new arrangements? Can they repower existing installations? Will the new contracts for difference model be genuinely accessible to smaller generators, or are we in danger of designing a scheme that works extremely well for a major developer proposing hundreds of megawatts of generation but that is particularly inaccessible to the ordinary farmer, SME, entrepreneur, community project or small hydro operator?

We cannot leave our existing renewable generators stranded or without certainty for the future. They were among the people who invested in Northern Ireland's renewable energy transition long before it became the priority that it is today. Where those installations remain viable, we should consider how we retain that productive capacity and encourage sensible repowering and reinvestment. I therefore ask the Minister to provide clarity on the transition from ROCs and what assessment her Department has made of the impact on small and locally owned renewable generators.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

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

I will indeed.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

The Member raises a critical point. Look at it the other way: some of those generators may gain an advantage in a contract-for-difference auction because of the very fact that they get a ROC. We will have to be mindful of that. Of course, the bigger the scale, the more the ROC and the more advantage they may then obtain. However, the Member raises a valid point. ROC was a payment that you got basically to foot the bill of the building. You got a return on the investment that you had to put in within a relatively short number of years and, then, you enjoyed the ROC for the remaining 15 years or whatever. That is the basis of ROC, but this is a critical juncture as to what we do going forward. Let us say that a farmer wants to upgrade a turbine to a bigger one. Will that allow him to fall into a contract for difference? That may well have been an issue for that farmer continuing to enjoy a ROC payment. I am not sure that he would have been able to upgrade and retain the ROC. Those are all questions that need to be delved into, but, unfortunately, they are not answered in the Bill.

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

I thank the Member for the intervention. That uncertainty needs to be addressed and, hopefully, the Minister can bring some insight and clarification. I see the opportunity around ROCs in the future as an opportunity for growth. There are people with expertise and knowledge about what they are doing who are already in the system. They are ready to move forward, but they need that help and push to grow the sector further.

Of course, we cannot talk about energy without addressing the huge elephant in the Building, which is the RHI. We cannot debate another Government-backed renewable support mechanism without acknowledging what happened during the renewable heat incentive scheme. It was badly mishandled, and it created a very difficult and awkward situation for this place. There were serious failures in the scheme's design, financial controls, governance and oversight, which have been well rehearsed and acknowledged. Those failures cost the public purse, but, more importantly, they damaged public confidence in government in relation to those matters. We must all learn from that, but the lesson from the RHI cannot be that Northern Ireland should be frightened to support the renewable energy sector. We would do ourselves a huge disservice and fail future generations if we were to allow the ghost of the RHI to haunt our future. We must move forward.

The lesson from the RHI is that we have to do it properly. In any future system, we need robust financial controls, transparency, independent scrutiny, regular review, value for money and very clear accountability from those who manage the scheme. We need to encourage private investment without creating unacceptable risks for taxpayers and consumers. Communities, as has been well rehearsed, must benefit. If a community hosts significant renewable infrastructure, the people who live there should see a meaningful return in that area. Therefore, community benefit should be real and tangible, not simply tokenistic or a box-ticking exercise.

Ultimately, the success of the legislation cannot simply be measured by megawatts of renewable generation. We need to ask what it can deliver. Does it give households greater protection from global energy shocks? Does it lower and stabilise costs for our businesses? Does it improve our energy sector? Does it attract investment and create jobs here? Does it support our farmers and rural communities? Does it allow local businesses and smaller generators to participate? Does it allow Northern Ireland to retain more of the money that we currently send elsewhere to purchase our energy? Northern Ireland has the resources. We have the agricultural base, businesses, expertise, including engineering expertise, and people who are prepared to invest, but we have lacked pace, joined-up government and leadership on those issues. The Audit Office made that point abundantly clear.

I support the Bill, and the SDLP supports it at Second Stage, but, as we have learned, passing the legislation is the easy part. Delivery is what matters now. We need to streamline planning, strengthen our grid and support businesses that are prepared to invest. We need a fair transition that allows existing ROC-supported generators to grow. We need to unlock the potential of wind, solar, hydro, anaerobic digestion, biogas, biomethane, sustainable biofuels and any emerging future technologies. We must all learn every lesson from the RHI. If we get the Bill right, renewable energy will not be viewed as a burden or simply another target that this place must meet but as one of the greatest economic opportunities for our people and our society. It is an opportunity to create jobs, support our businesses and farmers and create more opportunities for people in rural communities, which have lacked access to new businesses and opportunities. It is an opportunity to improve our energy security and protect our families and businesses from the next global energy shock. It is important that we get it right. We must seize the opportunity, move quickly and deliver it for everyone this time.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I call the Minister for the Economy to wind up the debate on the motion.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Go raibh maith agat, a Leas-Cheann Comhairle.

[Translation: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.]

I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. I have found them very helpful. I enjoyed hearing Members' reflections on the Bill and welcome the broad support for it. I thank Diana for her work on the Economy Committee and wish her well in her new role. I welcome Mike back to the Economy Committee and look forward to working with him.

The Bill is about providing the necessary legislative foundation to enable us to attract the investment that will be required to meet our renewable electricity ambitions while ensuring that we have the appropriate protections and safeguards in place for consumers as we create the sustainable, secure and affordable energy future to which we all aspire. I will address a number of points that were raised in the debate, and I am happy to take interventions from Members if I miss anything, because I have a lot of notes written down that I will try to get through.

First, on the timing of the Bill's introduction, let me say that nobody is more disappointed than I am that it took as look as it did to get us to this point. There was certainly no intention to mislead Members in any way. We believed that we would be able to use other primary legislation as the basis of this, but, on further legal advice, we realised that that was not the case. By the way, I actually think that having our own primary legislation is a good thing, because it enables us to design it to meet our needs.

Some Members, including the Chair of the Economy Committee, mentioned the number of delegated powers in the Bill. I affirm again that it is our intention, particularly for the elements of the Bill on terms and conditions, financial matters etc that will be introduced by regulations, to do that by the draft affirmative procedure so that the Committee will be able to fully scrutinise the regulations and the Assembly will have to approve them. I refer to the recent experience that we had with the RHI closure regulations, where we really listened to the Committee and took on board its views. That is my intention going forward, and I give that commitment to the Economy Committee as we move through this.

I will pick up on a couple of points that were made about different elements of the legislation, whether it is the technologies or the lower threshold. David, I know that you are particularly exercised about that, and, by they way, so was I. It is my intention that we talk about that as the first option, and, beyond that, we will look at it again. Like you, I believe that we should look at where small-scale generation has a real role to play. That links very much to some of the other issues that were raised in today's debate about the necessary investment in our grid infrastructure to enable the connections that will need to be made to facilitate the different renewable technologies being onboarded. We want to get as much of that online as quickly as possible, which is the intent behind the threshold.

I have a real commitment to community energy. One thing that is in the energy strategy action plan for this year is a community energy framework. We are working on that as well. We need to make sure that we tie those things together, because, to meet the 80% by 2030 target, a lot of things still need to come together. That includes our storage policy. We intend to publish our policy statement on storage this year. We have also just published the east-west interconnection policy. Certainly, that is my intention. Mr Honeyford has made the point on many occasions, and the Chair has made the point, about the overarching framework that we are working within. We are working on an energy policy position statement, which we intend to publish before the end of the year. That will set the direction of travel to 2030, and we are working beyond 2030 as well. We are making sure that we have a framework and a direction of travel that is clearly communicated to everyone.

Several Members mentioned the economic opportunity, which I very much agree with. We now have a green economy that is worth £1·5 billion. That represents 60% growth in less than a decade. We have huge opportunities to build on that as we invest further in renewables and tie that with our broader economic vision. Planning issues will be key in ensuring that we can deliver the infrastructure investment that we need to see. I am engaged with my ministerial counterpart on that. The policy on low carbon and renewables was published last year. Obviously, that is new and is being worked through. We also have the planning improvement plan and are beginning to see a positive impact from that. We need to see a continued emphasis on ensuring that our planning system supports the ambitions that we all have. We are all very conscious of the need to bring communities along with us. I share Mr McCrossan's view that we cannot in any way diminish environmental protection or the right of communities to have their say, but we have to make sure that we take on board concerns and address them as speedily as possible in order to ensure that we move forward at the necessary pace.

That brings me on to the community benefit element. I do not know whether it was Mr McCrossan who raised the point last week at the Committee about the legislation's use of the phrase, "The Department may make regulations". An explanation for that was given at Committee last year: it is about the specifics of the community benefit from the particular auction and technologies at a point in time. If it is offshore, for example, there will not be houses around the facility that you will make payments to, but, if you have onshore wind or solar technologies, the intention is that the households in those communities will receive that benefit. That is, I believe, spelt out in the legislation.

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

I thank the Minister for giving way. I appreciate her giving her time. I understand that this is a priority for her.

This is an important point, given that the Agriculture Minister is also present. You said that we need to make sure that things move more swiftly. I think that everybody agrees. One of the biggest hurdles that the planning system faces is responses from the Northern Ireland Environment Agency. Do you agree that there needs to be Executive consensus on how we fix that problem in order to streamline the system?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his point. Obviously, the Agriculture Minister is sitting here. I have no difficulty in saying that there is Executive agreement on the need for us to deal with planning on a more consistent and speedy basis. That is why the Infrastructure Minister has put in place the planning improvement plan. As I said, we are beginning to see improvements in the time that applications are taking. I think that we are all very conscious that resources need to be behind that, particularly in the different agencies that have those responsibilities. That is work in progress; there is no point in dressing it up as anything else. We need to keep a continued emphasis on that.

I am looking through my notes to see whether I have missed anything important. Kate has left the Chamber, but we have the green skills action plan, which was developed along with industry. The emphasis is very much on ensuring that we have a pipeline of people coming through to support the different elements of decarbonisation and the energy economy. From a departmental perspective, having energy sitting alongside skills is particularly useful.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for giving way. She mentioned clause 13, which is about community benefit. Clause 12 is about payments to electricity suppliers. Clause 12(3) states:

"The Department may by regulations make provision that imposes, on an electricity supplier who receives a payment from the counterparty, a requirement to secure that customers of the supplier receive a specified benefit from the payment by a specified time."

Does the Minister have in mind a specific time for which customers should get a discount?

Clause 13 is about community benefit. You now find that a lot of the generators will give a grant, for which you have to compete and apply. It is usually schools and community groups that avail themselves of that, but clause 13 refers to "specified persons". Is the Minister saying, therefore, that, if someone lives within a certain metreage of a generation plant, they may also get a financial benefit — that it would be not just the school down the road or the community group in a certain village but actual households that benefit from clause 13?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his intervention. In relation to clause 12, no, I do not have a specified time, but I am happy for the Committee to go into that in more detail.

In relation to community benefit at clause 13, it is my intention that households will receive the financial benefit of hosting the infrastructure. It is important that our communities feel direct benefit. The Member is right that, as it stands, it is a voluntary arrangement, but I want it to be a mandatory arrangement, with a requirement on those companies, so that communities in the areas where they put in the infrastructure feel the benefit of hosting that infrastructure.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

May I make another intervention?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

Yes, go for it.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

That begs the question, Minister, of what metreage or mileage you would use. People may be miles away from the plants but have them on their skyline. Has the Minister given any thought to that?

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

The short answer is yes. We have not yet determined what that should be, however. That is one of the elements of the Bill on which we intend to make further regulations, so there will be a further opportunity for consultation and to take on board the views of the public more widely on that. It is an important issue.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

I appreciate the Minister's giving way and thank Mr Frew for taking my job.

[Laughter.]

I jest.

I want to check two things, Minister. Last week, at Committee, I raised my concern about any possible delays to the creation and implementation of the terms and conditions. That was in relation to state aid rules and approval by the European Union. Officials said that they would engage with the European Union, but will you give a commitment to the House that you will encourage officials to do so without delay, so that there is no further delay to the process? Secondly, I have a question that I asked at Committee to which I did not really get an answer from officials. Are you certain, Minister, that you have the legal vires to implement legislation that means that community benefit would be through direct payments to householders? I raised that question with officials and was not confident in the answer that they gave, so I would welcome your view on it.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

I thank the Member for his intervention. I can certainly give him that commitment on the point about state aid. It is important. Other EU states have similar schemes in place. I take on board the point that he made about the timescales for some of the decisions to be made. We do not want any unnecessary delays at a future date, so we will ensure that that engagement happens.

On the point about the ability to require payments to be made, we are putting in place the legislation, and that will be the legislative basis. I probably cannot share legal advice, but I am happy that we will share any further legal opinion on the matter with the Committee in order to give some reassurance on the issue. There are certainly already situations where that is happening on a voluntary basis, but we want to make it mandatory.

I think that I have covered all the points, unless anybody else wants to put their hand up. If not, I will come to a conclusion. When we consider that oil was $97 a barrel this morning, I think that we all understand why we need to have greater self-sufficiency through generating our own energy to ensure affordability for consumers and businesses. I reassure the Committee of my willingness to take on board its views as the legislation progresses. As I think that I have shown with previous pieces of legislation, I value the role that the Committee plays, its input and its ability to add to the legislative progress, so I look forward to continuing that engagement as the Bill continues its progress through the Assembly. I commend the Bill to the Assembly.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That the Second Stage of the Renewable Electricity Generation Bill [NIA Bill 42/22-27] be agreed.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

That concludes the Second Stage of the Renewable Electricity Generation Bill. The Bill stands referred to the Committee for the Economy.

Members, please take your ease before we move on to the next item in the Order Paper.

(Madam Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I beg to move

That the Dilapidation Bill [NIA Bill 21/22-27] do now pass.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I welcome the opportunity to bring the Dilapidation Bill to its Final Stage. People in Northern Ireland deserve to have pride in their area and to see their high streets thriving, with shops, restaurants and a variety of businesses, instead of being blighted by run-down buildings and dilapidation. The Bill is a worthwhile and positive development, and I am extremely proud of it. I look forward to its playing a role in supporting our local economy and delivering more vibrant neighbourhoods. It will help restore not only the look but the safety of our cities, town squares and villages so that people can once again live and work in attractive and colourful neighbourhoods.

At Second Stage, I outlined why the Bill is to be welcomed by all Members, and I am pleased that it has received broad support across the Assembly, reflecting the shared recognition that the current legislative framework is no longer adequate. I am confident that Members will pass the Bill today. It will be a potentially transformative moment for our neighbourhoods as we enhance councils' ability to tackle dilapidation wherever it occurs. It will now be up to councils to drive change in their communities and utilise the new powers on the ground.

I thank the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee for its detailed scrutiny of the Bill and for its constructive engagement with stakeholders. The Committee's constructive and helpful recommendations led to amendments at Consideration Stage that have strengthened what was already a solid Bill. I thank my Executive colleagues and Members of the Assembly for their ongoing support throughout the passage of the legislation.

Aristotle is credited with saying:

"Even when laws have been written down, they ought not always to remain unaltered."

That is no more apt than in the case of the Dilapidation Bill. The Bill will modernise a fragmented and outdated body of law, some of which is more than 150 years old. Existing powers are inconsistent, limited in scope and less effective than those available elsewhere in the UK. That has constrained councils' ability to address dilapidation and has, in some cases, hindered the regeneration of our villages, towns and cities.

Members will already be familiar with the detail of the Bill, so I will refer only briefly to its key provisions. The Dilapidation Bill will give district councils a clearer and more robust suite of enforcement powers, enabling them to issue notices that are proportionate to the severity of the dilapidation identified. Those notices will require owners, occupiers or other interested parties to take remedial action to deal with the dilapidation and neglect within a specified period. Where ownership is unclear, councils will be able to serve notice on the land. If action is not taken, councils may undertake the necessary works themselves and recover costs through the courts if necessary. Unrecovered costs may be registered as a charge on the land, with the power of sale also available to councils. Those provisions are important. They protect the public purse, support effective enforcement and ensure that those responsible for properties do not benefit from allowing the buildings or land to fall into disrepair. The Bill also provides for proportionate penalties ranging from a £2,500 fine on summary conviction in the Magistrates' Court to more significant sanctions upon conviction on indictment, including an unlimited fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both.

The current lack of guidance is one of the reasons why some councils are reluctant to use the existing powers at their disposal. Therefore, the Bill will be accompanied by detailed statutory guidance to which councils must have regard when exercising functions under the legislation and which will enable councils to operate the new legislation effectively. It is envisaged that that approach will give much greater clarity to district councils, property owners, financial institutions and other government agencies regarding the scope of the legislation and the responsibilities of various parties. My officials continue to engage with council officers on the development of the guidance, which will be laid in draft before the Assembly in due course.

In summary, the Bill provides councils with modern, practical and enforceable powers to tackle dilapidation earlier and more effectively. It will help support regeneration, improve local environments and ensure a fairer approach to responsibility and cost recovery. I commend the Dilapidation Bill to the House and look forward to hearing Members' comments. I thank the officials who have worked on the Bill over the past number of years.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you, Minister.

I call Diana Armstrong, Chair of the AERA Committee.

Diana Armstrong (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his address. On behalf of the AERA Committee, I welcome the Final Stage of the Dilapidation Bill. I was not Chair of the Committee during the Bill's Committee Stage, but I have followed the Bill with keen interest, having seen the negative impact of dilapidated buildings on our towns and villages.

As we know, the primary aim of the Bill is to equip all district councils with a modern, fit-for-purpose, Northern Ireland-wide enforcement regime to address the negative impact of dilapidated or dangerous buildings and neglected sites. At present, councils have limited powers in that area. The Bill seeks to modernise and strengthen those powers and enable earlier intervention through a hierarchy of notices addressing distinct levels of dilapidation. Clauses 1 to 10 provide for that graduated approach, which ranges from maintenance notices and dilapidation notices to dangerous structure notices and, ultimately, immediate action where a building poses a serious risk to public safety. The Committee welcomed the provisions in the Bill allowing councils to recover costs where they have undertaken remedial action and the ability to register dilapidation notices in the Statutory Charges Register to ensure that relevant information is available where properties are sold. The remaining clauses cover a range of practical matters, including the power to require ownership information, measures to address obstruction, consultation with planning regarding heritage sites and rights of appeal against notices.

Throughout its scrutiny of the Bill, the Committee sought clarification on the intent, application and proportionality of the proposed powers. Members carefully considered how issues raised during the call for views could be addressed and whether that could be through amendments or the supporting statutory guidance. That work was extensive and encompassed 14 oral evidence sessions and 10 meetings for deliberations. In addition to formal evidence sessions, the Committee facilitated direct engagement between Assembly officials and Belfast City Council building control representatives to better understand operational implications. The Committee also invited amendment proposals from local government and raised those with the Department. As a result of that work, the Committee was satisfied that a number of substantive issues were addressed, including the Minister's agreement to key amendments and the introduction of a new review clause, all of which were subsequently passed at Consideration Stage. That demonstrates the value of the extended Committee Stage and the effectiveness of the Committee's scrutiny.

At Consideration Stage, it was evident that there was broad support across the House for the overall objectives of the Bill, particularly in equipping councils with clearer and more robust powers to address dilapidated, dangerous and neglected buildings in the interest of public safety, amenity and community well-being. However, Members continued to raise further issues, in particular concerns regarding the financial risks for councils and, ultimately, taxpayers. Questions were also raised at Committee regarding whether councils had sufficient resources, capacity and expertise to implement the new powers effectively. The importance of consistency and application across all council areas was highlighted as well as the operation of the enforcement regime. Proposals to enhance transparency and accountability, such as the introduction of a review mechanism and provision for a public register, were broadly welcomed by members. They are seen as important for assessing the delivery of tangible improvements. Taken together, those issues reflect a shared view that, while the Bill represents a positive step forward, its ultimate success will depend on effective implementation, adequate support for councils and continued engagement with councils.

The Committee welcomes the Final Stage of the Bill. I take the opportunity to thank Assembly officials, departmental officials and all stakeholders for their valuable contributions throughout the Committee Stage as well as to acknowledge the constructive working relationships that were established during the scrutiny process.

I will finish there on behalf of the Committee and make some comments on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party. The Ulster Unionist Party welcomes the Dilapidation Bill at Final Stage. It represents an important step towards improving our streetscapes, enhancing the environment and tackling the long-standing problem of neglect that holds communities back. It needs to be stated, however, that the Bill has somewhat overpromised in its ambition and is under-delivering, and there are lessons that need to be learned.

Across Northern Ireland, many towns and villages are blighted by derelict buildings that have been allowed to deteriorate for years. In my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, I regularly deal with concerns from residents about abandoned premises that have deteriorated and become a detriment to the local community landscape. Every Member will be familiar with buildings that once played an important role in local life but now stand vacant and deteriorating. Those sites undermine confidence, discourage investment, attract antisocial behaviour and, in some cases, present genuine safety concerns.

Recent Department for Communities research highlights the scale of the challenge. It found increasing levels of vacancy, a rise in the number of buildings in poor condition and a growing number of properties considered to be at risk. The problem is particularly acute in rural areas, where many communities feel powerless as buildings decline year after year. Through my time on the Economy Committee, I saw at first hand how dilapidation can deter businesses from investing in town centres and communities. If we want thriving high streets and vibrant communities, we cannot accept dereliction as the norm.

Legislation alone will not deliver the change that we all want to see. Councils must be given the resources and support necessary to use the powers effectively. I hope that the Bill will cover those areas. I therefore urge the Minister to bring forward a funding programme that would help local authorities and property owners to restore neglected buildings and bring them back into productive use.

The Bill provides an important tool to tackle blight and restore confidence in our communities. For that reason, the Ulster Unionist Party believes that the Bill deserves the support of the Chamber.

Aoife Finnegan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I start by thanking Janice and Glenda and the whole Committee team for everything that they have done on the legislation.

Sinn Féin previously raised concerns about the Bill that arose from engagement with the local government sector. Concerns remain that councils may not be adequately equipped with the tools and resources to implement the Bill sufficiently, and, without proper implementation, what would be the point?

At Committee Stage, Sinn Féin supported the progression of the Bill because we recognised that the current legislative framework was outdated and that councils needed stronger powers to address dangerous, neglected and dilapidated properties. Our support at that stage, however, was not the end of the conversation. Sinn Féin supported a number of the amendments that resulted from the Committee's scrutiny and sought to improve the workable provisions in the Bill.

The local government sector raised many concerns about councils not having the legal certainty, protection and operational support required to exercise the powers with confidence. Sinn Féin is aware that the Minister has met the sector to discuss those concerns and that it is still not satisfied that the Bill will be workable.

However, we are heartened to hear that conversations happened over the summer and that training on the new powers has taken place. We hope that the review process that is now embedded in the Bill will provide further support to councils if and when that is needed.

In considering the Bill in its entirety, Sinn Féin has sought to take a balanced and evidence-based approach, and it has endorsed the provisions that would give councils stronger, workable powers to tackle dangerous and neglected properties. Sinn Féin will support the Bill, because we need to tackle the impact of dangerous, neglected and dilapidated buildings on our communities, which have waited far too long for meaningful actions in that area. We have seen great examples recently with the Belfast fleadh, when a number of dilapidated buildings and sites were used as pop-up entertainment venues. It transformed the city centre. If it can be implemented correctly, the Bill has the potential to improve our streets, not only in appearance but by making them safer, constructively and socially eliminating the antisocial behaviour that vacant and run-down buildings are known to attract. Regenerated sites may instead attract business, visitors and investments and help property values in the surrounding area. For that reason, we support the Bill.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I am pleased to speak at the Bill's Final Stage, given that it has been a long journey to get here. I remember raising the issue with the then Environment Minister Alex Attwood way back in February 2012. One thing that we learn in politics in Northern Ireland is that patience is not only a virtue but an absolute necessity. I express my gratitude to Alex Attwood for taking the matter seriously and starting the Bill rolling. They say that success has many fathers, but, in these times of people posting videos to claim credit for other people's work, it is important to highlight where the origins of the Bill lie.

At its heart, this is a fairly straightforward proposition. We all know what impact a neglected or dilapidated building can have on a community. As we have heard today, it can blight a town centre or village street and discourage investment, undermine neighbouring properties and businesses, and reduce the attractiveness of an area to residents, visitors and businesses. I know that at first-hand: next door to my office in Comber lie the ruins of a building that was hastily knocked down to avoid its being listed and was then left to rot. The council has tried its best to cover it with hoardings but is powerless to act without the landlord's permission. In all our constituencies, there are crumbling walls or neglected buildings that our constituents want or need someone to step in to address, but, at present, that is just not happening. For too long, councils have had to work with a collection of powers that are in many cases rooted in Victorian legislation and fragmented and difficult to use. The Bill will consolidate and modernise those powers and give councils a clearer, Northern Ireland-wide framework.

The Bill will allow councils to intervene at a much earlier stage where a building or land is in a condition that is "detrimental to the amenity" of an area. We should not have to wait until a building has become dangerous or a site has deteriorated to the point at which it becomes a major problem for the community. The maintenance notice provisions will give councils the ability to require appropriate remedial action in cases of much lower-level dilapidation and neglect. That could mean dealing with a property in a poor condition that is having an obvious negative impact on the surrounding area before the problem becomes substantially worse. That must be welcomed. Where the problem is more serious, councils will have the power to issue a dilapidation notice. As we know, that will include a mechanism that allows much more substantial remediation action including, where appropriate, demolition.

The Bill also provides councils with powers to act where an owner or other person with an interest in the land does not comply with a notice. A council will be able to undertake the necessary remedial work and recover the costs. Therein, perhaps, lies a problem and a challenge for the council. A council and the wider community should not be left powerless simply because an owner refuses to address a problem that is impacting on people around a property.

Given the concerns raised by councils about the potential cost implications, it is important that the legislation contains appropriate mechanisms for cost recovery. Costs can, subject to the provisions of the legislation, of course, become a charge on the land, and the Bill provides further mechanisms to enable councils to recover that expenditure. At the same time, it is important to recognise that those are discretionary powers. There is no obligation on councils to pursue every case. The legislation will provide important weapons in a council's armoury, should it wish to use them, as it seeks to tackle the blight of dilapidation. I want to see those powers being used, and I do not want to see discretion being used as an excuse for inaction. The Committee recognised that councils need clarity on the operation of the powers, including the terminology, the thresholds and how the various provisions should be applied. It is important that the guidance is developed in meaningful consultation with local government. It is also worth highlighting the fact that, given the impact on private property rights, there are safeguards in the Bill, including rights of appeal and a framework for enforcement.

We should recognise the wider economic and community benefits that can flow from the legislation. Derelict buildings can become barriers to regeneration, affecting neighbouring businesses, discouraging investment and creating a sense of decline in an area. Legislation such as this is not, of course, a silver bullet, but it can be an important tool in making a difference to an area. That is why I welcome the Bill's emphasis on giving councils the ability to intervene much earlier.

There are still practical issues to be addressed. The Committee raised concerns about the resources available to councils and the potential financial exposure associated with enforcement. The Department and councils will need to work much more closely together to ensure that the powers are genuinely deliverable in practice and that the Bill does what it says on the tin. It is about giving local government the practical tools to protect the amenity of our communities and to protect and support regeneration. Neglected buildings and land should not simply deteriorate whilst everyone else waits for someone else to act. That is the principle behind the Bill. The legislation is about empowering councils with the discretion to act where action is needed and where it can make a meaningful difference. That was the simple ask back in 2012.

I put on record my thanks to the departmental officials, the Bill Office and, very importantly, the AERA Committee staff for their work on the legislation. We support the Final Stage of the Dilapidation Bill.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you, Michelle. John, you are down to speak next, and you know —.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Will I have time?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Are you happy to wait until after —?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Will I have time? It will take two or three minutes.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

That is grand. That is all that I am asking. I will hold you to that. You are the next Member to speak.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Now, yes?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Yes.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Thank you, Madam Principal Deputy Speaker. Apologies for any confusion.

I will speak as the Alliance Party spokesperson for agriculture, environment and rural affairs and as a member of the AERA Committee. I intend to speak briefly so as to avoid repetition of previous points. At the outset, I, once again, express the Alliance Party's support for the Dilapidation Bill. It is long-awaited and important legislation that will provide our local councils with more effective tools to address the serious issue of dilapidated and dangerous buildings across our town centres and wider communities. It is important to point out that the Bill is wider than just the appearance of town centres: it addresses safety as well as aesthetics. The properties at stake are not only eyesores but reduce confidence in local areas, decrease property values, pose health and safety risks and have a damaging impact on the wider environment. In many places, they also undermine efforts to regenerate our high streets and create safer, more attractive spaces for residents, businesses and visitors.

I acknowledge the work of the Minister and departmental officials in bringing the Bill to this point. Officials briefed the Committee regularly and in a detailed way. That gratitude extends to Committee officials and the Bill Office. The legislation has benefited from Committee scrutiny, including engagement with a number of key stakeholders, and I hope that those stakeholders feel that their views have been heard and, where possible, reflected in the Bill as it has progressed through the Assembly.

This is constructive and sensible legislation. It will not solve every issue connected to dereliction or town centre regeneration, but it is an important step forward. It gives councils a clearer, more practical framework in which to act, and it responds to a problem that many communities across Northern Ireland know only too well. For those reasons, the Alliance Party is pleased to support the Dilapidation Bill at its Final Stage. I look forward to seeing it implemented in a way that supports safer, cleaner and more vibrant communities across Northern Ireland.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Thank you, John. You will appreciate that it is not good when in this position to have to cut Members off when they are on their feet. I appreciate that.

Without further ado, I say that the Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The debate will continue after Question Time, when the first Member to be called will be Daniel McCrossan.

The debate stood suspended.

The sitting was suspended at 12.55 pm.

On resuming (Mr Speaker in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions — Communities

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

1. Mrs Mason asked the Minister for Communities to outline how many of the 5,850 social homes committed to in the Programme for Government 2024-27 his Department has delivered to date. (AQO 3875/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Up to 31 August 2026, 3,441 of the 5,850 social home starts committed to in the Programme for Government (PFG) have been delivered through the social housing development programme (SHDP). I am focused on delivering the remaining 2,409 homes in this mandate, which will depend on a budget for them being made available.

The biggest risk to meeting the Programme for Government target has been confirmation of a budget at the start of each financial year. Shortly after I came into office, it was estimated that we would start construction on only 400 new social homes in 2024-25, but, because I successfully secured additional funding, we started 1,504 and completed 1,410. Again, in 2025-26, my initial budget would have secured only around 1,000 social home starts, but by securing additional budget, we were able to start 1,765 and complete 1,538. That is no way in which to plan and deliver the construction of a large and complex programme to build thousands of homes on hundreds of sites. The budget for the SHDP needs to be confirmed much earlier, and I will continue to make the case for that at the Executive.

Cathy Mason (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Minister, the latest figures show that there are almost 4,000 people on the housing waiting list in South Down. Frankly, your record of delivering social housing is deeply concerning. Do you agree that delivering just 28 social homes in South Down since taking office is not good enough and represents a failure? How can you justify such a number, which does not meet the need and nowhere near adds up to what is required?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The Member is absolutely right: it does not meet the need that is there. We have 5,000 social homes under construction right now. South Down is very similar to East Antrim in that regard. I would like to see far more social homes being built in my constituency as well, but we are building what we can with what we have. We saw a 17% increase last year in the number of homes built compared with the number built the year before. I want to have more money. I want to make sure that we can build more social homes. I have requested that money from the Executive, but Executive colleagues have not given me the budget cover to build those homes. She shakes her head, but that is the truth. Homes are built with money. I need to get money from the Minister of Finance and the First Minister.

I put a paper to the Executive, and it stated, "We have a commitment in the Programme for Government. This is how many homes we need to build. Are you prepared to fund them?", but it has not even got on to the Executive agenda. I am committed to doing my part in the absence of proper funding from the Executive, and I have taken other steps. I have made it cheaper to build social homes and made sure that we review the design guide. I am looking at how we can use public-sector land as well, and I will continue to do that, but it comes down to money. I am spending the money that we have better, but we need to do more.

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for what he is doing. In my constituency of Fermanagh and South Tyrone, applications opened for the first affordable rent homes last month. It is typical of Sinn Féin. Mrs Mason has come to the Chamber today with total hypocrisy, given Sinn Féin's non-delivery. Sinn Féin forgets —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

May we have a question, please?

Deborah Erskine (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

— that it signed up to the targets at the Executive, yet it has failed to back that up with funding. Minister, are you, like me, disappointed that Sinn Féin cannot back up its actions when it comes to taking such decisions at the Executive?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes. Not only does Sinn Féin have a brass neck but it has no credibility at all when it comes to housing. We have challenges in Northern Ireland. We have priorities, and social housing has been a priority for me. That is why I put the paper to Executive colleagues and said to them, "We have made a commitment to the people of Northern Ireland in the Programme for Government. This is what I need to make sure that we can build social homes. Finance Minister and First Minister, are you prepared to ensure that it gets on to the Executive agenda and gets agreed so that we can put funding not to something new that I am asking for and not to some new programme on which we have not all agreed but to something on which we have had collective Executive agreement to meet a target in the Programme for Government?".

That is what I have asked for, and it has been refused.

I understand that things are difficult and budgets are tight, but do not come complaining to me when it is your party's Ministers who have not acted in the way in which they should have done. Everybody knows where the blame lies for that. Everybody knows that Sinn Féin is the party that is blocking this. It has an appalling record when it comes to housing. More will come out on the issue shortly.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Minister, I am sure that, like me, you are disappointed that the target of 5,850 social homes has not been met. Has there been a review of your decision to cut the housing association grant that contributes to building those homes? How has that impacted on the ability to provide those homes?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I do not want the Member to misunderstand me. I have given you the position as of August 2026. The mandate does not end until next May. That is the period for which we will calculate the final number of starts. I am not saying that the target is out of reach: I still believe that we can reach that target and ensure that we have started new social homes. I have not given up on that. I will continue to press Executive colleagues to give me the funding. It will be tricky, but it is doable. I will do everything that I can to ensure that it happens.

The initial reaction and advice from my officials is that the change in the grant rate has not led to what some people had predicted. I still believe that, when the final analysis is done, we will see that we have been able to build more social homes with the available money. I thank the housing associations for stretching themselves and doing that work, because it means that we can stretch the money that we have further, which will contribute to more social homes being built under my leadership.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

In my council area of Derry City and Strabane, there are over 11,400 people on the waiting list for social housing. That number will continue to grow as the lack of available housing pushes up rents in the private sector, putting them beyond affordability for people and increasing homelessness and hardship. Minister, what progress has been made in unlocking housing supply? What engagement have you had with the Infrastructure Minister on the well-publicised waste water infrastructure issues that are hampering housing supply?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am grateful to the Member for raising that issue, because I want the focus to be kept on housing and what we need to do. We have taken steps. That is one of the reasons why we had a 17% increase year-on-year in the number of social homes that are being built. It is not enough — there is still more to do — but we are in a better position than we were in when I came into office. We are also making other changes, as I have set out.

When it comes to social housing, waste water infrastructure is still a concern. Perhaps, it is not as much of a concern as it is right now in the private sector, but it is still a significant issue. That is why we have a housing supply strategy in place. I brought that forward to ensure that we take a coordinated and joined-up approach to tackling the issues. There has been good cooperation, which has unlocked a number of sites over the past few years with the significant investment that has been made available to the Infrastructure Minister. I will continue to meet her. We will continue to meet officials to ensure that we put that money where it needs to go so that we can build more homes. That is what this is all about: increasing supply. That is what I am committed to doing.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Mr McGlone is not in his place.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

3. Mr Brett asked the Minister for Communities when the first meeting of the oversight panel for reviewing the governance, practices and procedures applicable to Ulster Boxing will take place. (AQO 3877/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank my colleague Phillip Brett for all the work that he has done to put the issue on the public agenda. He has played a significant role in ensuring that the issue was not hidden in the shadows and that anti-Protestantism in boxing will not be allowed to continue. As a result, I announced the panel. Sport NI has been progressing work on the oversight panel, and I expect it to meet for the first time later this month.

Phillip Brett (DUP, Belfast North)

Thank you, Minister, for that answer and for your commitment on the subject. Let us not forget that the reason that it came to light was that a boxer was denied a place in the Commonwealth Games because of his religion.

Minister, can you confirm that the report will not be shy in shining a light into corners of boxing across Northern Ireland, which has, for too long, had an anti-Protestant bias? When will the report be published? Will you ensure that those who have broken the law and abused Protestants in boxing are finally exposed?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I can provide that assurance to the Member. I have no interest in putting together a panel and ensuring that its report is published only for it to sit there and not do what needs to be done, such as highlighting some of the difficult and challenging issues for other people. I give the Member my commitment that the report will be thorough and done within the timescales that I set out after the Equality Commission's review. We will see progress on and delivery of that report by the end of March 2027.

Timothy Gaston (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

As far back as 2013, an independent report into boxing highlighted the inability of people from Northern Ireland to box for the United Kingdom in the Olympics. Will the Minister give the House an assurance and commitment today that he will address that issue before his time in office comes to an end?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes, absolutely. I have been working on that and most recently raised it with the other UK sports Ministers when we met in Glasgow in July. It is absolutely right that those pathways are there and that people are aware of them. I give my commitment that I will continue to raise the issue and push for the change that is necessary so that that can be fulfilled.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

4. Ms Ní Chuilín asked the Minister for Communities to outline the total funding his Department made towards the 2026 Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann. (AQO 3878/22-27)

Peter McReynolds (Alliance, Belfast East)

15. Mr McReynolds asked the Minister for Communities to outline any plans under way for ensuring the longevity of the cultural legacy created by the 2026 Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann. (AQO 3889/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I intend to answer questions 4 and 15 together.

My Department did not provide any direct funding to the fleadh. However, my officials and several arm's-length bodies (ALBs) of my Department engaged with partners to support and promote the fleadh, and my Department provided important support in terms of event space, with a number of DFC-owned public spaces used by businesses during the fleadh. Those included Writer's Square, Donegall Quay, Queen's Quay, Bank Square and Cotton Court, and my Department was responsible for ensuring that all areas under its ownership were cleaned and maintained before, during and after the event.

Looking forward to 2027, while I am not currently in a position to advise on any projected investment for next year, I will ensure that my Department and its ALBs continue to engage with the organisers of the 2027 fleadh on ways to further enhance the festival for Belfast and Northern Ireland, as well as ensuring the longevity of its cultural legacy.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Minister for that answer. It is disappointing that he did not put any direct funding into the Fleadh Cheoil. I welcome the fact that spaces belonging to the Department were made available. However, the business case for next year is being made now and will continue into early 2027. Will the Minister commit to putting funding into the Fleadh Cheoil? Belfast City Council did so with much less resource, so I would welcome the Minister having another look at it. I am sure that he will agree that the fleadh was a very successful event.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes, it was a successful event, and I was happy to attend a number of the events in August. It brought people together and was good for the city and beyond.

I was not asked to provide any funding for the fleadh. I met the organisers over a year before the event. There are lots of other people who ask me for money and I am not able to help them, but no request was made in this case. It was right and proper that the funding from the Executive came from the Department for the Economy. It is the Department that is responsible for large events, and that is why it happened in that way. Of course, I will always consider how we can help and how we can bring benefit to people across Northern Ireland.

Peter McReynolds (Alliance, Belfast East)

Minister, the fleadh was a fantastic success, with our thriving arts community bringing Belfast to life in a way that I certainly have never seen before in my lifetime. Minister, you have an opportunity to decide what legacy you want to leave for that sector. I know that you met the arts group Equity earlier today, and I can see that its representatives are watching from the Public Gallery. What practical steps are you taking now to ensure that the artists whom we will depend on for the 2027 fleadh will be able to remain in that sector, build sustainable careers and be supported for the contribution that they will make in 2027?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes, of course, the fleadh would not have been what it was had it not been for the many people who contributed, took part and displayed their talents, all of which were enjoyed by everybody.

The Member asked specifically about legacy and what I am doing to ensure that we have a legacy for the arts in Northern Ireland, and that is exactly why I have brought forward the heritage, culture and creativity framework, underneath which will be, for the first time ever in Northern Ireland, an arts policy. We spent a considerable amount of time developing that. We engaged with other Departments and arm's-length bodies.

We have ensured that there has been input from councils, and we are doing a considerable amount of work in that space in order to make sure that it is fit for purpose. I am pleased to announce that that will be going out for consultation soon and, subject to the feedback from that consultation, I look forward to sharing that policy with Executive colleagues, with the aim of ensuring that I publish that as early as I can in 2027.

Brian Kingston (DUP, Belfast North)

Does the Minister agree that the fleadh was a good example of how our shared cultures can be celebrated together, which is in stark contrast with the despicable scenes and glorification of terrorism that we see annually at the west Belfast festival?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes, absolutely. I congratulate the organisers of the fleadh for the way in which they went about their work and how they tried to make it inclusive and representative not just of Belfast but of Northern Ireland as a whole. There were great opportunities for people to feel welcome and involved. The Member is absolutely right: that does stand in stark contrast to what we saw at the west Belfast festival. Unfortunately, it is becoming commonplace that it is an event that glorifies terrorism. Even this year, we had the promotion and platforming of the evil ideology of Martina Anderson and everything that she had been involved in, and disgracefully so. It would be better for everybody in Northern Ireland if we had a little bit more fleadh and a lot less féile next year.

Some Members

Hear, hear.

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

Minister, the Fleadh Cheoil na hÉireann was an extraordinary and unprecedented event in this city and in this region. It genuinely brought joy in a way that people in this city had not experienced before. The people who delivered that, however, and were the backbone of that, were the artists — dozens of whom are watching in the Chamber today — who have been failed by you and by your predecessors as Ministers with responsibility for arts, culture and communities. They want to know when the arts will be sustainably funded here. In Dublin, one theatre — the Abbey Theatre — gets the equivalent of nearly the entire arts budget in Northern Ireland. Budget talks are going on at the moment. Will you finally put an end to the scandal of the underfunded arts sector here and press for a specific and meaningful increase in the arts budget in Northern Ireland?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

First, I recognise the fact that the arts are not funded to the level that we want to see them funded to. That stands out when you look at where the budget was 15 years ago compared with where it is today. I understand and fully appreciate people's concerns in relation to that. However, I have made it a priority. For as long as I have been in office, I have had some very difficult decisions to make. There are lots of things that I have not been able to fund as I would have liked to or as we did in the past. Despite that, however, I have increased the arts budget above inflation since I came into office in February 2024. Is that enough? No. Does it take us back to where we were in the previous decade? No, it does not. Nonetheless, I hope that it shows the commitment that I have made to make sure that the budget has been protected during that time.

There has also been a considerable increase in the capital funds that have been made available to the Arts Council, from £1·3 million to £1·9 million, over the past couple of years. I understand the importance of community infrastructure and of people having musical instruments for bands, schools, other groups and individuals, and that is why that has been increased. We are in a really constrained budgetary environment, and I will do what I can with what I have. That is why I will also make sure that we deliver on the arts budget.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

5. Mr Kearney asked the Minister for Communities to outline the amount of departmental funding that has been spent on legal actions concerning Irish language signage in public spaces. (AQO 3879/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

If the Member is referring to the judicial review of Irish language signage at Grand Central station, that remains ongoing, and therefore I am unable to confirm costs at this stage.

Declan Kearney (Sinn Féin, South Antrim)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as an fhreagra fhíorghairid sin.

[Translation: I thank the Minister for his very short answer.]

Minister, you will be aware that there is considerable anger over the legal action that you have been taking against that signage. Earlier today, I noted that a loss of confidence has been submitted by the arts sector in relation to a lack of investment in that work. Regardless of whether you are able to specify a quantum of expenditure, does your Department hold a dedicated financial reserve in order to pursue such legal actions?

If not, are you funding those costs at the expense of the delivery of other services under the auspices of your Department, including investment in the arts sector?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

It is the same old Sinn Féin: it thinks that the law does not apply to it.

I want to be clear: I will use the law, and I will use the courts to make sure that the law is upheld. The Minister for Infrastructure has the same responsibilities as every other Minister who operates in the Executive. We are all equally subject to section 20 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, which means that significant, controversial and cross-cutting decisions need to come to the Executive. The Infrastructure Minister failed in her duty on that one. She abdicated responsibility on that one. That is why legal action is being taken. It has to be taken because of her actions. Had she done the right thing and followed the law, we would not be in this position right now. I know that Sinn Féin feels that it can break the law. I know that it feels that, in the past, the law has not applied to it. However, the law is there for a reason and must be adhered to. I do not want to spend departmental resources fighting legal actions. There are plenty coming my way. Yes, whenever money is used on legal action, that is money that could have been spent elsewhere. To ensure, however, that we are upholding the law in Northern Ireland, that is money that will be well spent.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

The Minister will be aware that the Irish Language Commissioner has been in post since November 2025. What steps are he and his departmental officials taking to engage with the commissioner to ensure that the new standards that will be rolled out for the Department and its arm's-length bodies will be consistent so that any future legal action in that regard can be avoided?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

First, I have met the new commissioner on a number of occasions. We have had at least one formal meeting, and I have no doubt that we will continue to meet on those issues. It is important and right that those standards, which will have to be approved by the First Minister and deputy First Minister, are applied in such a way that their application does not cause the frictions that we are talking about or lead to additional costs.

David Brooks (DUP, Belfast East)

I commend the Minister on the stance that he has taken. Just because Sinn Féin Ministers cannot deliver within the rules does not mean that they can flout them. Sinn Féin Members love to pontificate on the Irish language, but does the Minister agree that the zeal of their words is often not matched by their actions?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes, that is absolutely the case. This is a good opportunity to raise the issue of the recent court judgement on the Irish language strategy. Sinn Féin Members have been blaming me for a long, long time for holding up the strategy, but the judge was clear: DFC has been progressing the language strategies. So where did the hold-up come from? Where does the blockage come from? Here is what the judge had to say: he said that one Sinn Féin Minister did not even respond to his requests for information". I quote from the judgement:

"Of the two that responded, one stated that he had noted but had not approved the draft Strategy and the other, although approving it, raised issues in respect of costings."

Three Sinn Féin Ministers and three different approaches to the Irish language, yet what do they do all the time? They stand up and blame other people, because that, apparently, seems to be the Sinn Féin way. It is always somebody else's fault: blame the DUP, blame the Brits, blame austerity. Blame Sinn Féin Ministers, because they have been completely incompetent when it comes to this issue. They have mucked up, yet they continue to blame other people.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Rubbish.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Oh, rubbish? "Rubbish", says Mr Gildernew.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

You are the Minister for Communities. Take responsibility.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes, I am Minister for Communities, and you should read what the judge actually said. I know that it is a meaty judgement and will take a bit of time, but I encourage him to read it, because, in there, he will find the truth. It will not be nice reading for him, but I encourage him to actually read it: it is there in black and white.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

6. Dr Aiken asked the Minister for Communities to outline how his Department intends to support households impacted by SSE Airtricity’s 19·2% gas tariff increase, which is due to take effect on 1 October 2026. (AQO 3880/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

While responsibility for the regulation of gas tariffs rests with the independent Utility Regulator and energy policy is the responsibility of the Department for the Economy, I remain committed to supporting households experiencing fuel poverty and wider financial hardship. Through the warm healthy homes strategy, I have established a long-term, cross-government framework to help to reduce costs, improve energy efficiency, strengthen advice services and enhance consumer protection. A key commitment in the strategy is the establishment of the warm healthy homes fund, which is due to launch in spring 2027. To support its delivery, I am seeking Executive backing for £150 million over five years to improve the energy efficiency of homes and provide lasting support for households that are most at risk of fuel poverty. My Department continues to support households that face rising energy costs through initiatives, including the Make the Call service, the discretionary support scheme and the Housing Executive's Northern Ireland Energy Advice service. To strengthen that support, I intend to introduce changes to the discretionary support scheme later this year to ensure that fuel grant assistance is available to eligible households, regardless of their home heating source, which will help to provide a fairer and more consistent approach for households facing fuel poverty.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his answer. He will be aware that we have a rather bizarre situation in Northern Ireland, where large amounts of surplus renewable energy get completely wasted. Has the Minister had any opportunity to talk to representatives from business or industry about what we can do about that wasted energy opportunity, which could go a long way towards sorting out fuel poverty in particular?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for that question. I encourage everybody to look into that issue. I met representatives of a particular group that is involved in fantastic work to take renewable energy at a time when it cannot otherwise be used. As a result, a trial is ongoing, and that has been of great benefit to households that need it most. It means that surplus energy is not wasted or lost. I want to see that work being rolled out further in Northern Ireland. It is one of many things that we can do to help people and that should be done.

Maurice Bradley (DUP, East Londonderry)

We have heard from Sinn Féin Members in the House about the need to tackle poverty in all its forms. Therefore, does the Minister agree that it is completely hypocritical for the Sinn Féin Minister not even to mention the warm healthy homes fund in his draft Budget?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Absolutely. That is something that we need to tackle and work together on. I am looking for support from Executive colleagues to make sure that we can put the fund in place and start spending the money and making a difference. The £100 home heating oil scheme will open tomorrow, but I want more strategic interventions and to make sure that we put money into projects that give benefits not just for this year but the next and the next. That is what the warm healthy homes fund can do.

I am disappointed that the Finance Minister has not seen the benefit of that, as he did not even mention it in the draft Budget. I hope, however, that he will change his mind. I know that the Chair of the Communities Committee will assist me in that, because he recently said that:

"The Communities Minister, Gordon Lyons, must outline what is being done to ensure this financial support is delivered as soon as possible, and when it will be available. Sinn Féin ministers will continue working to get people the help they need, and we need to know if others are doing the same."

I encourage the Finance Minister to listen to his colleague Mr Gildernew and ensure that I get the support and money that I need to make a long-term difference in people's lives.

Andrew McMurray (Alliance, South Down)

Minister, I will touch on two parts of your previous answers. You referenced helping with heating bills and the cost of living through energy efficiency measures. If you could elaborate on that, that would be very good. You also mentioned a surplus of renewable energy. A lot of grassroots community organisations in my constituency struggle and would like to have community-based renewable energy sources. Will you commit to talking to the Minister for the Economy about how the Department for Communities can help those communities and the economy by providing that infrastructure?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Most broadly, the answer to the Member's questions is that I will not rule anything out in considering what we can do to make sure that we provide the help that is necessary. The different forms of support will include help to make homes more resilient and better insulated and, where we can, to ensure that people can generate their own electricity through, for example, solar panels.

Depending on the area in which people find themselves living, many different remedies are available. The Member will be aware that rural areas will have particular issues.

We are therefore committed to working on providing help. I will do my best, and I hope that other parties will join me.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

We now move on to topical questions.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

T1. Mr Durkan asked the Minister for Communities, having met artists and representatives from across the arts sector today, many of whom are in the Public Gallery, and noting that over 1,000 individuals and arts organisations have signed a letter of no confidence in the Minister in light of his failure to bring forward an arts policy or sustainable funding for the sector, given that we have heard the promise before of a policy coming soon, which is like 'Waiting for Godot', only we are waiting for Gordon, whether any forthcoming policy will include the required funding to put the arts on a firm and fair footing. (AQT 2551/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

First, that was a slightly better quip than normal.

[Laughter.]

The Member is improving. I said "slightly". Well done to him. I wonder how long it took him to think that up.

I say this very clearly: the arts policy is following the timelines and timescales that were originally set out. We have completed the framework. The first policies are out for consultation, and some of those consultations have closed. The arts policy is coming soon. I have committed to doing that. I will do everything that I can to make sure that it is in place as soon as possible. I always say that I do what I can when I can with what I have. I want to see the policy finalised as soon as possible. I want to make sure that we have the funding in place and that it goes to the right areas: those that will make the most difference and have maximum impact.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister. Does he recognise that a failure to fund the arts adequately threatens not just tens of thousands of livelihoods and the massive socio-economic benefits that the arts create but the very infrastructure that made the fleadh such a success and has made this small place such a big player on the world stage? People are fed up with the political theatre between the DUP and Sinn Féin, which we have seen again today. Will the Minister outline specifically how he has pressed for funding for the arts in the ongoing Budget talks?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I am grateful to the Member for highlighting the issue again. I will say what I said before, which is that we find ourselves in a constrained environment. I am looking for the best budget settlement for my Department so that I can fund all the areas that are so critical, including the arts.

Again, I put it on record that, during my time in office, we have seen an increase in arts funding to the Arts Council alone, and, of course, I have funded the arts in other ways outside the Arts Council. There has been an increase from £11·8 million in the year in which I took office to £12·71 million in the past year. Capital funding has gone up from £1·32 million to £1·96 million. I know that that is not enough. I know that it does not help us to do all the things that we want to do, but it says something that, when we are in the midst of such intense budgetary pressures, with cuts having to be made in other areas, we have had an above-inflation — yes, ever so slightly — increase. I will try very hard to make sure that we get the funding to where it needs to go, but that will depend on funding becoming available more widely.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

T2. Ms Bradshaw asked the Minister for Communities, who will be aware that the Prime Minister and the Culture Secretary made some announcements through the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport over the summer that will result in Barnett consequentials for Northern Ireland, to outline any work that he is doing to prepare for that money coming for the arts and any conversations that he has had with the Minister of Finance about ensuring that the money is ring-fenced for that purpose. (AQT 2552/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

As the Member will be aware, money is unfortunately not ring-fenced when it comes to us as a Barnett consequential. I would love it if it were, because, in so many areas of my Department, we are one of the biggest losers when it comes to Barnett consequentials, be that in employability programmes, work to tackle fraud and error in the welfare system, the arts or elsewhere. The money goes into the pot as a whole.

I frequently make the case about Barnett consequentials to the Finance Minister around the Executive table. I will continue to do that, and I would certainly appreciate the Member's support in that endeavour.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you, Minister. I suppose that, off the back of the fleadh, you are in a good position to make that call, but I will move on.

We have had a shortened mandate. We have had only three years for the Programme for Government. In the conversation with the arts sector representatives earlier there was disappointment that the arts sector, given everything that it delivers for Northern Ireland, does not feature strongly enough in the Programme for Government. What legacy will you leave to ensure that, in the next mandate, there will be more support and recognition for the arts?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

First and foremost, I hope that that will be done through the delivery of an arts policy that ticks all of the boxes that need to be ticked, so that we have continued sustainability, innovation and collaboration. I hope that that will be a significant legacy for the arts.

A focus of mine during my time in office has been on ensuring that the arts do not become the preserve of one group of people or are maintained as such. I genuinely believe that the arts are for everyone in all communities from all backgrounds. That is important to me, because the arts do not sit on their own; they are integral to the other things that we are trying to achieve in society. I have seen first-hand how the arts are hugely beneficial when it comes to helping people with their healthcare and education in particular. The arts also have impacts elsewhere. For example, I have seen how they help to keep people out of the justice system and how they contribute to the social fabric of our lives.

I say all of that while being deeply frustrated that we are in the financial position that we are in. I understand why those people are here and why they are annoyed and angry, but I will do what I can to make sure that it is on the agenda and that we have an arts policy that delivers what people want to see.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

T3. Mr Clarke asked the Minister for Communities, given an interview that the Minister gave earlier today about the Alliance Party's Eóin Tennyson's Conversion Practices (Criminalisation) Bill, whether he believes that it could criminalise parental behaviour in the home. (AQT 2553/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes, I do. It is wrong for others to trivialise or belittle people's views on that when they are based on the very text of a Bill that is before us. I see that Kellie Armstrong is shaking her head. Kellie, I remind you that you said in Committee that you were a bit of a nerd and an expert on some things and then had to completely retreat and do a U-turn.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

This is an attack on me.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

It is not an attack, Kellie. Here we go again: people take language to mean what it does not mean. I am simply highlighting the fallacy of your argument.

Let us base this not on emotion but on the text that is in front of us. I do not know whether this is Mr Tennyson's intention, but nowhere in the Bill does it exclude a conversation that could happen between a parent and a child. It does not exclude that at all. That will be within the scope of the Bill. I encourage Members to read it. There is no exemption or get-out clause. If the legislation were put in place, there would be no defence in those circumstances. I hope that Mr Tennyson will work with others in the Chamber so that we can find something that deals with quack therapies or pseudoscience that cause harm to people. However, as the Member well knows, much of that is covered in law already. Coercive behaviour is covered already. Let us not rush into doing something that would significantly damage ordinary conversations in the home.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his comments thus far on the debate, including everything that he has said in interviews on radio and television. I agree with everything that you have said. Will you go further and agree with me that this is an attack on religious freedoms?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes, it is. If people read the Bill, they will see that it states:

"a person provides or carries out conversion therapy if the person provides or carries out any ... coaching or instruction".

When I go along to church, coaching and instruction is part of the religious activity.

I think that Mr Tennyson would say that there is a get-out clause for that in clause 7, which states that no conversion practice is taking place if:

"the intent is solely to express beliefs or opinions",

but religious behaviour, belief and practice can go beyond a person simply stating what they believe; it can go into an area that may be described as "instruction", which is such a broad term.

I know that people want to see a Bill such as this go through, because they want to take a stand against some of the abhorrent practices that have taken place in the past. I believe that we need to draw a line between those harmful practices and what can be considered to be sincere and genuine counselling, pastoral support, preaching or prayer. I do not believe that that line is drawn in the right place in the Bill.

There is a lot of tutting from the side from Alliance Members on the Committee. I am more than happy to have the discussions and the debates, and I will do so in a measured and mature way, because I believe that the issue is far too serious for us to be mistaken about what is actually in the Bill. I have no time whatsoever for the quack therapies, and they have been rightly discredited for years. When you tell a parent what they can say to a child, however, that is wrong. I encourage everybody, therefore, to wake up to what is actually in the Bill.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

T4. Mr Boylan asked the Minister for Communities to state the outcome of the meeting that he had with representatives from the arts sector and whether he accepts their concerns. (AQT 2554/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Yes, I accept the concerns. The outcome of the meeting was that we had a good conversation, and I outlined what I have already said in the House on the increase in funding, the fact that more needs to be done and the fact that an arts policy will be delivered.

Cathal Boylan (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Go raibh maith agat,

[Translation: Thank you]

Minister, for that answer. Given that the Minister has failed to deliver on an arts policy, temporary accommodation, a proper Irish language strategy or a meaningful anti-poverty strategy, what will he deliver for those areas by the end of the mandate?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

Clearly, the Member did not listen to what I said about the work that has been done on an arts policy that, subject to Executive agreement, will be delivered. He should sit out the question on the Irish language strategy, because, according to the court judgement, his party has been the biggest blocker of that strategy by not providing the information to me or giving assent to it. The duties on temporary accommodation have been fulfilled. That is why we have seen an increase in costs to over £42 million this year. We are providing that accommodation. I want to see those costs go down, but the Member's party has not allowed a paper to go on to the agenda so that we can provide the proper funding that we need for social housing to be developed. On temporary accommodation, he is wrong. On the arts policy, he is wrong. On the Irish language strategy, it is his fault.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

T5. Miss Hargey asked the Minister for Communities, having noted that the end of the mandate is approaching, to state why the anti-poverty strategy has not been published. (AQT 2555/22-27)

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

The anti-poverty strategy has not been published because further work is being done on it to ensure that there is support around the Chamber and that it has the confidence of those who have been lobbying on the issue. That work has progressed, and I look forward to its being completed so that we can get the strategy agreed by the Executive by end of the mandate.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

On the back of that response, will the Minister give a firm date for when the strategy will be published along with the other social strategies that were committed to in the previous mandate?

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

I cannot give a date because it is outside my control. On the Irish language strategy, as I just said, Sinn Féin has been responsible for holding that up, and I cannot commit —

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

Absolutely not.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

"Absolutely not", she says. I encourage her to read the judgement to see who has not responded. The Minister for the Economy did not respond to me. Were the Member to read the judgement, she would understand that there is not a duty on me to —

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

[Inaudible.]

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Order. A question has been asked. The Minister will be heard.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

See, this is the problem with Sinn Féin: when Sinn Féin Members get an answer that they do not like, they seek to blame other people.

[Interruption.]

It is in black and white. The judge said that there is not a duty on me to bring it forward; there is a duty on the —

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

You are the Minister responsible.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

If you would listen, you would understand. There is a duty on the Executive to bring it forward. Executive colleagues have not come back to me. The Economy Minister has not come back to me. The Finance Minister refused to do anything other than to note it. The Infrastructure Minister was not happy. She said that she is concerned about the costings, and you have the cheek and the brass neck —.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

[Inaudible.]

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

You have the brass neck to blame me. She says, "You are the Minister responsible". It just shows that she —

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

[Inaudible.]

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

It just shows —

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

[Inaudible.]

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Order.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

None. You have not brought one strand —

Edwin Poots (DUP, Belfast South)

Order. The Minister will be heard.

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

It just shows that Deirdre Hargey cannot read what it is front of her. It very clearly says that this is —.

Deirdre Hargey (Sinn Féin, Belfast South)

[Interruption.]

Gordon Lyons (DUP, East Antrim)

She keeps talking. If you do not listen, you will not learn. If you were to read the judgement, you would see exactly what the hold-up is and that it is an Executive strategy. All that she has done is continually interrupt me, because she has no defence. Her party has been found out. It cannot deliver, and not only can it not deliver but it is incompetence from the Ministers opposite.

(Mr Principal Deputy Speaker in the Chair)

Executive Committee Business

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

I welcome the Bill, and the SDLP will support it at Final Stage today. There is no doubt that councils need stronger powers to deal with dilapidated buildings and neglected sites. We all know the buildings that I am talking about; they are very prominent in all our constituencies. They have sat empty for years, with windows broken or boarded up, roofs falling in, drainpipes hanging off and weeds growing around them. People walk past them every day and wonder why nothing is being done to tackle that scourge. We see it in Strabane, we see it Omagh and we see it in towns and villages right across our society, so giving councils better powers to act is much welcomed.

It is also worth remembering that the issue did not start with the Bill. It stretches back many years and has been through a very long process. Indeed, when the issue was raised in the Assembly in 2012, it was the SDLP Environment Minister Alex Attwood who recognised that the existing arrangements were not good enough and took action to support the councils in tackling dereliction. Michelle McIlveen acknowledged that during her contribution and gave credit to Alex Attwood for being willing to take the issue forward. However, we are 14 years down the line. It is welcome that we are finally getting the legislation across the line, and a considerable amount of work has gone into the Bill to get it to this point. As a member of the AERA Committee, I have been involved in the detailed scrutiny of it. The Committee considered the Bill at 22 meetings and took evidence from councils, Building Control, heritage organisations, architects, landlords, retailers and regeneration organisations. We heard different views, and, at times, serious concerns were expressed. We spent a considerable amount of time going through the detail and testing how these powers would work in practice.

At this point, I acknowledge the departmental officials who repeatedly came before the Committee, answered the concerns of members, took our questions and engaged with the issues that we raised. That engagement helped to improve the Bill from what it originally was, but, after all that scrutiny, I still believe that we need to be realistic about what the Bill can actually achieve. It is only part of the answer; it is not the whole answer. Giving a council the power to serve notice does not give that council the money to restore a building; it does not make an expensive restoration project suddenly commercially viable; and it does not bring investment back into a struggling town centre. Our town centres are struggling. It needs much more. We need proper investment in regeneration, and we need support for restoration. We need to look at the fiscal levers available to government, and we need to look at rates and at what more can be done to encourage empty properties back into productive, sustainable use.

We also need to tackle those who deliberately sit on properties and allow them to deteriorate, and all of us could state examples of where that is happening in our constituencies. There are owners who have the resources to maintain their properties but simply refuse to do so, maybe in the hope of a grant coming down the tracks. That is not acceptable. Councils should be able to take firm action in those cases. There are other buildings, particularly older and historic buildings, where the economics of restoration do not add up. That presents a very different problem. We need to be very careful in case an unintended consequence of the legislation is that demolition becomes the cheapest and easiest option. Once those buildings are gone, we will not get them back.

There is also the question of resources for our councils. That came through strongly during our Committee scrutiny. If we give councils these powers but do not give them the capacity to use them, we will not achieve what the Bill intends to do. Potentially significant costs are involved.

Ownership can be complicated; legal action may be required; councils may have to spend money carrying out works before attempting to recover such costs; and, inevitably, there will be cases where recovery of that money will be difficult. We cannot simply pass the Bill, raise expectations among the public and then leave councils saying, "Yes, we have the power to do something, but we do not have the necessary resources".

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Will the Member take an intervention?

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

I will take an intervention from the Minister.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Does the Member understand and appreciate that, if the owner of a property restores that building and brings it back into use, the Bill will have a potential long-term benefit for that individual? It is about taking the long-term view for property owners.

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

I appreciate the Minister's intervention and clarification. It is an important point. As an MLA, I have worked with multiple organisations, large business owners and small business owners to see some restoration of their properties. One of the most recent examples was the old post office in Strabane. Thankfully, after considerable pressure, Royal Mail finally restored that historic structure, which it occupies to this day. There are premises that should be brought back into use and repurposed. They should be cosmetically pleasing and have a sustainable use for the local community.

The big fear is that, where costs are difficult to recover and where councils face obstacles in recovering such costs, they could fall back on the ratepayer. The Committee was told that on many occasions throughout the scrutiny process. I also do not want to see a situation where the response depends on which council area you happen to live in. If one council has the resources to pursue such cases and another has not, we could see different levels of action. I appreciate the Minister's intervention, but that applies only in certain circumstances. The issues are wider. We need to watch this closely.

The SDLP has worked constructively to improve the Bill. We appreciate the importance of it. If it does what it intends to do, it can only be a good thing, but there is a concern about the resources to back that up and some of the potential unintended consequences. My SDLP colleague Colin McGrath and I tabled a number of amendments, and I am pleased that we successfully secured some important changes. In particular, councils will now be required to maintain and publish an accessible register of action that they take under the new powers. That will only improve the transparency of the process and ensure that we can keep a close eye on what is happening. We also secured the provision that makes it necessary to record that information by district electoral area. That is important. It means that communities will be able to see where action is being taken. We will be able to see whether the powers are being used as they are prescribed and whether there are significant differences between areas.

Unfortunately, the Assembly did not support another amendment that we tabled. We wanted a proper assessment of the prevalence of dilapidated buildings, dangerous structures and neglected sites across every council area. I remain disappointed that that was rejected, because we still have a basic problem: we do not have a proper baseline as to the scale of the problem. We know it in our individual constituencies, but we do not have a proper baseline for comparison across areas. We do not have a complete picture of the scale of dilapidation across Northern Ireland before the powers come into operation. Some councils have such a list. I am fortunate that Derry City and Strabane District Council has provided a local analysis of the Strabane town centre, particularly alongside the regeneration of the town centre, which is to be welcomed. When we come back to review the legislation across Northern Ireland generally, how will we properly measure its impact if we have not known the scale of the problem from the beginning? The register that we secured will tell us what councils have acted on, but it will not tell us how many dilapidated buildings remain untouched. That is an important distinction. The baseline assessment would have strengthened the Bill, and I hope that the Minister will consider revisiting that going forward.

There is also an opportunity here. When we look at empty buildings in town centres, we should not just see an eyesore but ask what we can do with it. Could it become housing, for instance? Could the upper floors of shops become accommodation? Could it become a new business or some form of community benefit or tourism asset? Could we bring people and life back into our town centres? That is where the wider Executive need to step up. That is why I understand that this is not something that lies solely at the foot of the Minister.

This cannot simply become a problem that is handed to councils, but it also cannot be a problem for just the AERA Minister.

Communities also have a responsibility for regeneration, and finance controls are important fiscal levers. DAERA introduced the legislation, but councils have a central role, and all of them need to work together constructively to improve the situation. I think of Strabane, where people have been promised regeneration for years. It took 10 years to get a regeneration scheme into the streets. The streets will now look great, but the buildings are in a terrible state of disrepair. Businesses are struggling because of various increased overheads and the difficulties that businesses are facing here and now. People want to see buildings occupied and businesses opening, but people need to support local businesses to ensure that they are sustainable. People want investment and to see their own town, in a parochial way, moving forward. We all have that close sense of heart to our own community and the town that we are from. The same applies in the Omagh area and in communities across Northern Ireland.

I often think of Herdman's Mill, one of the most historic buildings in this place. It is a huge part of our industrial heritage, which you see when you look at the story behind it. Such buildings show exactly why early intervention matters. If we wait until a building has deteriorated to the point when restoration becomes impossible, we have waited too long and left it too late.

I support giving councils the additional powers, but the real test comes after the Bill is passed. We need investment alongside those powers. I appeal to the Minister of Finance, the Minister for Communities, the Economy Minister and, indeed, the AERA Minister to work together to see something meaningful done that will see a serious approach taken by the Executive to see the regeneration of town centres across communities. We need the Government to use every available lever to bring empty and derelict buildings back into use, because people will judge the Bill not by the notices that councils serve but by whether the derelict buildings that they walk past every day or are looking at from their windows are still sitting derelict in five years' time. That is the test of the Bill, that is the test of the House, and that is the test of the Executive.

The SDLP supports the Bill today, but we will continue to press the Minister, and the wider Executive to support the Minister, to ensure that these powers are backed by the investment and action needed to make a real difference for all of our community.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I welcome the Final Stage of the Bill. As many Members have said in the debate, we face an unprecedented high street crisis across Northern Ireland with a quarter of non-domestic units lying vacant, leading to what some have termed "industrial levels" of dereliction, so I particularly welcome the Minister's Bill now that it has reached its Final Stage.

It will come as no surprise to anyone in the Chamber that we have the highest levels of dereliction in the United Kingdom; therefore, it is very welcome that the Minister is taking meaningful action in that area. If we are to tackle the problem fully, however, other Departments need to play their part in creating a multi-year and multi-departmental reconstruction plan. What has happened to the Executive Office's high street task force? I recently asked a question about that in the House and got a very poor answer, if not indeed a blank answer, about that work — work that was lauded by that Department but seems to have dropped into a large black hole.

I am really pleased to see my Alliance colleague Minister Andrew Muir leading on these important issues for towns and their high streets and for rural communities. Sadly, my constituency office is located in a part of Carrickfergus where there is a great deal of dilapidation in many buildings, so it is a story that I see and live with every day. I want to place on record my thanks to you, Minister, for coming to Carrickfergus and seeing the dilapidation with buildings that have really fallen to the ground and buildings that landlords and the local authority have to spend money to prop up rather than taking action to deal with them.

The town of Carrickfergus has an 800-year-old Norman castle, which is steeped in history and is one of east Antrim's most famous attractions, drawing visitors from around the world every week. I park where the tour buses arrive. When visitors leave the castle and the harbour area, they are, sadly, met with empty shops, deteriorating buildings and struggling businesses. Not all our businesses are struggling, and it is for those that are trying to be vibrant and to hold our high streets together that I make my plea that we take action to deal with the dilapidated buildings around them.

The former Bell's Corner building in Carrickfergus is one of the most recent examples. The tenant of that building had to leave the century-old historic location for newer premises in order to keep their business alive after the older structure in which they were located required significant restoration but no action was taken. The recent news of the closure of Dobbins Inn, a hotel and bar dating back to the 1500s, after it was unable to find a new owner has sent shock waves through the town. That will become another building at risk if no action is taken.

No one wants to see important buildings in the heart of a town left vacant, fall into disrepair or become part of a blighted town centre. As the Minister has outlined in his Bill, there is an important role for landlords and tenants and for local authorities and those who want to redevelop such buildings to play. There are plenty of people with excellent ideas, but, unfortunately, many of their plans are frustrated because they cannot get access to the buildings or sites.

There are reasons to be positive. Recently, a planning application was submitted for a £42·2 million regeneration project in Carrickfergus, to be funded in part by the Belfast region city deal. It will have an impact on businesses, but, sadly, even that project will be insufficient to deal with areas of dereliction outside the core town-centre area. The Bill has the potential to give councils a clearer and more effective tool to use to step in where property owners have neglected their responsibilities, where a building becomes dangerous or where a prominent vacant property is holding back the wider regeneration of an area.

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

I thank the Member for giving way. It is important to say that there cannot be one rule for the Government and another for private property owners. The Member will, I hope, agree with me that a significant number of public buildings in the estates of Health, Education and other Departments are lying empty and in a difficult state of disrepair. The Executive need to lead from the front by showing that they are dealing with dereliction as well.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the Member for that intervention. I wholeheartedly agree. There needs to be an urgent review of the estates of all Departments in Northern Ireland, not least Health. I drive past the Whiteabbey Hospital site, for example. A large wall surrounds a vast site. Yes, the buildings, with modern facilities, are being used, but acres of land simply lie empty. None of that is acceptable.

I particularly welcome the Minister's comments about how the legislation will support councils to act more quickly and effectively in cases in which they have to take action. It will help protect the historic character of town centres and encourage the restoration and return to use of significant buildings. People across Northern Ireland want to see their town centres thrive, with vacant high streets brought back to life, investment translated into visible change and communities able to take pride in the spaces in which they live, work and socialise.

I welcome the Bill and, particularly given that it is at its Final Stage, commend the Minister for bringing it forward. Finally, I congratulate the Minister for taking action on behalf of all of us who have great concern about our high streets and communities.

Nuala McAllister (Alliance, Belfast North)

I welcome the Bill's Final Stage. I do not sit on the Committee, so I have not had as much opportunity as some other Members to listen to stakeholders, but, from the outside, I have engaged on the Bill with stakeholders in my constituency. It is very much welcomed by people in our local communities. I am glad that what seems to be a consensus in the House has been reached today. It is important to recognise that, and, of course, that another Alliance Minister is delivering legislation that will make a difference to our communities.

How many people are fed up with seeing derelict and abandoned buildings, be they private houses, shops or any other commercial businesses?

We see too many derelict buildings in my North Belfast constituency, despite the efforts of local people and organisations to tackle them. When the Minister was in North Belfast, I had the opportunity to show him some of the sites across the city. If you take the Antrim Road from Glengormley into the city centre, or if you go down the Crumlin Road or the Shore Road, you will see that spots all over the place are blighted by derelict buildings. Some of the structures are very unsafe, and it has not been possible to ascertain who owns many of them. I therefore welcome the provisions that will fix that problem. We know that the Bill will not fix every problem when it comes to derelict buildings, but it is a start, and it is one that I am grateful for.

In my previous role at Belfast City Council, I and other councillors sought to use the powers there to take enforcement action where there were issues, but it was too little and did not go far enough. How many of us in our constituency offices have tried to get the cleansing department and environmental health to come out? They serve what notice they can, and they clean up where they can, but it simply does not go far enough. That frustrates our constituents, and it frustrates us, too. I believe that the Bill will make a difference to a process that has already been exhausted. Hopefully, we will see a difference.

We must highlight the fact that, when a building has fallen into disrepair or has been damaged and is unsafe, or where a commercial business has pulled out of a building and left it to ruin — when it is in such a sorry state — it has already gone too far. My hope is that the Bill — I know that this is the Minister's aim — will be not only a reactive tool to place notices, take remedial action and give councils greater powers but a preventative tool that can transform areas.

I want to touch on a comment made by Daniel McCrossan. He highlighted that the Bill will not transform our high streets in their entirety. We agree that it will not, but it is one step towards doing just that. I know that the Alliance Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs is committed to doing what he can through his brief. We are in a collective Executive, and we must work together. It is therefore important that, working alongside the Department for the Economy and the Department for Infrastructure, we build on these positive steps from the Minister's Department.

As I did in my speech at Second Stage, I will mention the housing need in North Belfast. North Belfast has one of the highest levels of housing need across Northern Ireland. People call our constituency office about so many sites and say, "Well, what about that house? That house is empty" or, "What about that building?". There have been some positive changes in North Belfast: for example, on the Shore Road, where the land that was derelict for years has been transformed by social and private housing. We hope that the legislation can provide something similar. In some areas, it is not that there is a stretch of streets with derelict houses but pockets with one or two derelict houses. People might think, "What kind of difference will one or two houses make?", but, when housing need is so stressed, every single home is needed in our constituencies. Dilapidation makes areas look run down, and it takes away people in such areas. People deserve to live in areas that they are proud of. I welcome the fact that we can work with building owners and occupiers.

There was mention of area mapping and of not knowing the scale of the problem. It was mentioned that Derry City and Strabane District Council was one of the council areas that carried out area mapping. Belfast City Council undertook the same measure. I urge all councils to do that, because, in the local area plans, we all — the Executive, the Assembly and local councils — must work together to build on the work of our local communities. I hope that councils can get on board with doing that. While it is not contained in the Bill, there are the powers there to do just that.

This is positive legislation. Whilst the Bill has some punitive measures, its aim is to ensure that we do not need to get that far, because councils will have the tools and mechanisms to serve notice and to get people to take action before it is too late. Ultimately, I hope that this is one step in the right direction in transforming our local communities and empowering people to contact councils and their local reps, because there are greater powers to deal with derelict sites. I very much welcome the Bill and congratulate the Minister on bringing it forward.

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

I, too, welcome the fact that this legislation has made its way to Final Stage.

For too long, people have watched buildings deteriorate, sites become neglected and once proud parts of our towns slowly go into decline. People then reasonably ask why nothing can be done about it. The sense of frustration in our community is real. People do not care whether a Department, the council or an official is responsible; they just want to see the work done and their areas looking the best that they possibly can. We will set that principle and concept against our high streets, and it has been referenced on a number of occasions that our high streets are changing.

The town centre of 20 or 30 years ago is not the town centre of today. Shopping habits have changed, many banks have closed, public services have moved away from high-street buildings and businesses have come and gone. The challenge facing us is not simply about preserving the high street of the past; it is about preparing for the high street of the future. It is about giving some of our very neglected town centres an opportunity to prepare for that future.

I see that very clearly in my home town of Downpatrick. I am immensely proud of the county town of Down, but I am also frustrated by what people see when they walk through parts of it: empty buildings, neglected properties, shutters that are down and buildings that are deteriorating. Those things can be seen in gateways to the town. I referenced that the banks have closed. Four banks are lying empty on our very short main street — Market Street — which sends a message to potential investors and those travelling through the town about whether to stop. They just see a series of empty buildings, some of which have been derelict for a decade or more. One of the key corners in our town has a building that I last went into when I was a teenager, and it closed soon after that. I am sure that people will be kind to me about how long ago that was, but it was a very long time ago. That building is lying empty in the heart of the town.

The danger comes when we start to normalise that. We normalise walking up and down a town that has a broken window here and a closed building or a dropped shutter there. You just look past all of that because it becomes normal. When we start to normalise that, we stop noticing it. Slowly, the message takes hold that nobody is responsible for those buildings. They start off with their shutters down before lying vacant for a while. They then start to deteriorate, and, after a decade or so, become an eyesore. I do not want to accept that message as the future for Downpatrick and places like it. I want us to do something about those high streets now. It is the same in many other towns across the North. I want to see an opportunity for somebody to say, "We will take responsibility for turning some of this around". If one building is turned around, then there is an impetus to turn around the building beside it or the one across the way. The Bill might give to the people who care about their town and get sad about its deterioration a glimmer of hope that there might be an opportunity to start turning some of it around.

The legislation will be judged not by the powers in it but by how they are used, and I made that point at the Consideration Stage. I said that giving the councils powers is important, but ensuring that they use them is crucial. I was pleased that the amendments tabled by the SDLP were accepted and became part the legislation. They will improve our understanding of the scale of dilapidation and provide greater transparency about the action that is being taken. I hope that we can chalk that one up as the Opposition being constructive and helpful. When we all work together on Bills like this, we all get to improve them. That makes the legislation all the better.

The challenge now moves beyond the Chamber, because the powers are there and the legislation is here, but a tiny bit is still missing, and that is the fact that the Bill will require money for it to be implemented on the ground. We know that, when it is needed, the financial package will be there. I hope that the Executive will not get people's hopes up with the Bill but that the finance will be there to match it.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Will the Member give way?

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

Yes, of course.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

Will the Member accept that the key function of the Bill is to give discretionary powers to councils to intervene? By councils intervening, there will be an opportunity for them to get money on to their rates base, so we need to take a long-term approach.

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

Absolutely. I talked about not getting people's hopes up. The legislation is not going to change things overnight. We accept that it will take time. There may be a wee bit of money that needs to come from the centre, a bit will need to be recovered on the ground from those who own buildings that have been left, and a bit might need to be invested by councils. Of course, we can take the strategic and longer-term view: empty buildings are probably not delivering a great deal of rates, but if you can get them up to being functioning buildings, they will generate an income for councils. There are opportunities there. With a bit of momentum and effort, it can be a win-win-win situation for everybody. If we can get that win-win-win lined up, it will help places such as Downpatrick to win and change for the future. We cannot wait much longer for that, and I hope that we see it soon.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I thank all Members for their contributions to this constructive debate, particularly the Chair of the Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee. I am very grateful to the Committee for its constructive scrutiny of the legislation. It has been supported ably by Janice and the rest of the team on the Committee. It has been a team exercise, and I appreciate everything that people have brought to it.

A number of points were raised during the consideration of the Final Stage. I assure Members that I will not speak for as long as Alex Attwood used to speak on issues such as this. In relation to some of the key points about funding, I have done what I can. There is a role for the wider Executive, particularly the Department for Communities and the Department for the Economy, in the revitalisation of our villages, towns and city centres. As we have just discussed, we need to take a long-term approach to the benefits associated with bringing buildings back into use and how that can help not only the neighbourhoods that have been affected by dilapidation but the rates base as well. There is a role for the Department of Finance in rating policy, and there was a recent consultation on that. We need to find a way of not incentivising owners of buildings to leave them empty, and we need to find a way to ensure that people bring them back into use.

The Bill has discretionary powers for councils, and I assure Members that we will continue to engage with councils on the guidance that we will publish in due course. Ultimately, the legislation has the power to do good for our villages, towns and city centres. Legislation is the bread and butter of this place, and I am very proud to bring the Bill to Final Stage. I hope that Members will endorse it and that we can move forward and deliver for everyone in Northern Ireland.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That the Dilapidation Bill [NIA Bill 21/22-27] do now pass.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Congratulations, Minister.

Committee Business

Diana Armstrong (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I beg to move

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 5 February 2027 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Fisheries, Aquaculture and Water Environment Bill.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

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

Diana Armstrong (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

On behalf of the Committee for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, I wish to request an extension to the Committee Stage of the Fisheries, Aquaculture and Water Environment Bill to 5 February 2027, as agreed by the Committee at its meeting on 2 July 2026.

The Committee received a pre-introductory briefing from DAERA officials on 18 June and heard that the Bill is intended to modernise and consolidate the legislative framework governing fisheries, aquaculture and the water environment by replacing and updating provisions in the outdated and fragmented Fisheries Act (Northern Ireland) 1966. Members heard that the Bill aims to support sustainable and profitable fisheries. It will establish statutory duties for the Department, strengthen regulatory and enforcement powers, update licensing systems and ensure alignment with current environmental standards and wider UK fisheries policy.

The Committee noted that the aim is to place conservation, protection and enhancement of fish stocks at its core, informed by environmental, economic and social considerations and scientific evidence. The Bill also proposes an enforcement framework supported by a graduated system of penalties intended to deter non-compliance. The Committee heard that the Bill represents significant modernisation of the aquaculture sector, replacing a largely licence-based model with a more integrated ecosystem-based approach. The Committee recognises that much of the existing legislation is outdated. It noted that the Department's consultations demonstrated broad support for the modernisation of fisheries and water environment legislation. The responses also reflected support for DAERA's regulatory role and the importance of transparent and inclusive governance and cross-departmental collaboration.

The Committee supported the principles of the Bill at the Second Stage debate. The Committee's call for views will close on 11 September, with limited responses so far. The onus is now firmly on the Committee's oral evidence sessions to delve into a significant number of important issues, including those that were raised at Second Stage, that it is keen to consider in more detail. They include water quality and ecosystem recovery, the scientific evidence base, proportionality of enforcement powers and potential impacts on fisheries and aquaculture businesses. The Committee will also want to explore funding measures and departmental capacity to ensure that the Bill is workable in practice. Other areas for our consideration include cross-border arrangements, interdepartmental working, delegated powers and the development of a modern aquaculture framework. The Committee also expects to receive a RaISe Bill research paper in the coming weeks, which, going by past experience, is likely to identify further issues for our consideration.

The Committee has discussed the time needed for comprehensive scrutiny of the issues that I have just highlighted and additional matters that will likely become apparent in the near future as we delve more deeply into the evidence. We wish to complete — we will endeavour to do so — our scrutiny in advance of the date that we have requested to allow for the remaining Bill stages to be completed before the end of the mandate. To that end, the Committee has agreed to hold an extra meeting every week to focus on this important Executive Bill. The Committee is also dealing with two Members' Bills that are at Committee Stage in parallel with the Executive Bill, alongside its consideration of many statutory rules and the ongoing scrutiny of DAERA policies.

Having consulted the Bill Office and considered the evidence that we wish to gather, together with our other ongoing work, the Committee seeks the support of the House to extend Committee Stage to 5 February 2027. The Committee will, of course, work at pace in its extra meeting each week to report in advance of that date if at all possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved:

That, in accordance with Standing Order 33(4), the period referred to in Standing Order 33(2) be extended to 5 February 2027 in relation to the Committee Stage of the Fisheries, Aquaculture and Water Environment Bill.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Members, please take your ease. Thank you.

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

Private Members' Business

Sinéad McLaughlin (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I beg to move

That the Second Stage of the Regional Balance Bill [NIA Bill 35/22-27] be agreed.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

In accordance with convention, the Business Committee has not allocated a time limit to the debate. I call Sinéad McLaughlin to open the debate on the Bill. Sinéad, over to you.