Northern Ireland Assembly, 14 September 2020

384 contributions from 56 members. The official report.

Assembly Business

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 7 July, the Assembly passed a motion that asked the Minister for Infrastructure to bring forward a support package for our hard-pressed taxi, haulage and coach industries. Two months later, it has taken a letter from the First Minister and the deputy First Minister to move that along. Is it in order for Minister Mallon to ignore the will of the House? Will the Speaker write to the Minister and urge her to respect this place?

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The Member will be aware that I have written on a number of occasions to the Executive Office and, indeed, all Executive Ministers reminding and advising them to respect the various courtesies, conventions and entitlements of the House.

The Member has made her point. I have not gone into the detail of the point that you raised, but you have made your point on the record, and I will have something further to say later in the day, when I deal with the first question for urgent oral answer.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Further to that point of order, is it not the case that, in order to enable Minister Mallon to make the provisions, she is now going to be given powers that she hitherto did not have? Is that not what has been declared today?

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The Member has raised that point, and it is a further point. I will take note of it, the House will take note of it and the Ministers on the Executive will take note of it, I dare say. As I said, I will return to the matter later.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

I beg to move

That this Assembly takes note of the proposed changes to the Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 as set out in the draft Flags (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) (No 2) Regulations 2020.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The Business Committee has agreed that there will be no time limit for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have up to five minutes in which to propose and up to five minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. All other Members who are called to speak will have three minutes.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I am interested to know under what Standing Order Members are being restricted to three minutes? Standing Order 17 relates to speeches in the Assembly. Standing Order 17(4) says:

"The Business Committee shall consult with the Speaker in order to establish the total time to be allocated to each debate".

It does not bestow on the Business Committee the power to limit the Members who wish to speak to three minutes. It bestows only on the Business Committee, in consultation with yourself, the power to set the totality of the time. Where has the three-minute limit come from?

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The Business Committee considered the proposal. The Member will be aware that the Secretary of State has written to me. The Business Committee, then, decided to table the motion for a take-note debate. The unusual and interesting situation is that, whilst legislation in this House is dealt with by way of no-time limit on speaking rights, this legislation is not being dealt with or processed by the Assembly. I am satisfied that the Business Committee took a proper and appropriate decision to leave the debate un-timed, but to limit the speaking time for Members to three minutes. I am satisfied that that decision is in line with our right to do that. We will review the approach if it appears that there is something wrong with it and in the light of any Member's contributions, including your own. We can do that in due course. Thank you.

Keith Buchanan (DUP, Mid Ulster)

The Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 made provision for the flying of flags at government buildings on specific days. Under the Flags (Northern Ireland) Order 2000, it is the Secretary of State who has the power to make and amend such regulations. However, in doing so, the Secretary of State is required to refer a draft of the proposed regulations to the Assembly. The Assembly must then report to the Secretary of State the views expressed in the Assembly on the proposed regulations by the date specified by the Secretary of State. Following this, the Secretary of State has a duty to consider this report. The Secretary of State may amend the proposed regulations as a result of the report before laying the regulations for approval by resolution of each House of Parliament.

The Business Committee was made aware that the Secretary of State had written to the Speaker on 1 September 2020. The Secretary of State advised that he intended to amend the Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 to implement the New Decade, New Approach (NDNA) agreement commitment to bring the list of designated flag-flying days for Northern Ireland government buildings and courthouses into line with the designated days. This means an increase of three days. The Secretary of State also advised that he intended to amend the list of specified government buildings from which the flag will fly. A copy of the proposed regulations and an accompanying explanatory memorandum was circulated to all Members last week.

The Secretary of State has asked the Assembly to consider these draft regulations and provide a report of the Assembly's views by 14 September 2020. The Business Committee did not take a view on these proposals in line with previous practice. Instead, the Business Committee agreed to bring forward today's motion to create an opportunity for Members to consider the draft regulations. The Official Report of the debate will record the views expressed in the Assembly on the proposal.

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make some remarks as an Assembly Member for Mid Ulster and Democratic Unionist Party Chief Whip. The DUP regards the display of our national symbols, including the national flag, as a basic but central expression of pride in Northern Ireland's Britishness and membership of the United Kingdom. We have consistently supported its display from public buildings on a 365-day basis. This, we feel, is entirely appropriate for major civic buildings such as Parliament Buildings and Belfast City Hall and reflects practice that is increasingly being seen elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Therefore, although we welcome the addition of three designated days and two government buildings under these draft regulations as committed to in New Decade, New Approach, it does not address our overarching concerns about the general direction of travel.

Nowhere else in the United Kingdom has designated flags legislation. The fact remains that it is unwieldy and not fit for purpose. For several years, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) has recognised the three royal birthdays that we are adding to the designated-day list. Northern Ireland has been left behind due to the absence of a political agreement or proactive steps by the Secretary of State. It is wrong that Northern Ireland faces such upheaval to, simply, keep pace with the expression of our Britishness as it is expressed elsewhere in our nation. It is unjust that our national pride is subject to the veto of certain political parties. We, on these Benches, seek a fundamental reform of those structures. As we approach the centenary of the foundation of Northern Ireland, we will be strongly making a case to Her Majesty's Government for greater assurances that the celebrations do not fall victim to the inflexibility of the current legislation. The Northern Ireland Secretary may be required to give due regard to the Belfast Agreement before making any changes, but we are clear that a failure to act, in itself, violates the constitutional provisions that are already set out in that agreement.

The flying of the national flag is not divisive or disproportionate. Its display from public or civic buildings does not invoke fear or division; it simply recognises Northern Ireland's constitutional status and gives due regard to the principle of consent. I encourage all Members who share our position on these matters to passionately make their views known in this debate.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Like most people on a Monday in the middle of a global pandemic, the Union flag is not my top priority. It is fair to say that the Union flag is never my top priority. As Irish republicans, additional flying days for the flag are never going to be something that we, in Sinn Féin, will celebrate. Indeed, the presence of the Union flag above Parliament Buildings and other civic spaces — at one time intimidating to people who identified as Irish and to republicans — is now somewhat tired.

I do not feel welcomed when I drive up that hill and I see the red, white and blue flying, but it does not threaten my Irishness. I am confident in my identity. I can be Irish in a place that does not recognise me as such and seeing a Union flag does not take away from that. That said, respect is an important commodity, and the North of Ireland is contested territory. The dominance of one community over another should be left in the past. It is our belief that there should be parity of esteem for British and Irish identities here. We should have neutrality or equality when it comes to flags and emblems; either both or neither.

Obviously, that is not something that political unionism is ready to accept. We have seen and heard talk in recent days and weeks hyping up the need for artefacts and memorials to the creation of the state in the lead-up to the centenary of partition. If we are honest with ourselves, anyone can see from a quick walk around this Building or the estate — indeed, around this city — that there is no shortage of British imperialism reflected in architecture, statues and memorials and even in street names.

In the current context, the motion is at best bizarre and inappropriate and at worst insulting. We are in the middle of a global pandemic in which thousands are worrying about their business going bust, being made redundant or balancing and managing the threat of COVID with the need to maintain employment and put food on the table.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for giving way. She says that the motion is bizarre. She knows that the issue is a direct consequence of New Decade, New Approach — an agreement that her party signed up to support.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The Member has an additional minute.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Member for his input. I am coming on to the fact that the British Government have got other commitments as per NDNA that they have not yet signed up to or implemented. That is why I am saying that the motion is bizarre.

With everything that is going on around us right now, ensuring the increased flying of a flag seems like a strange item to put at the top of the agenda. Of course, the virus that is Brexit is still trundling along in the background of our new normal, and given the British Government's failures to honour their commitments as set out in NDNA, as in previous agreements, it is a damning indictment that this is something that they are choosing to prioritise.

We have been waiting for 22 years for a bill of rights for the North, and, in our Ad Hoc Committee, we still have members questioning the merits of creating one. Two pages before the paragraph on flag regulations in NDNA, the British Government commit to:

"close engagement with a restored Executive"

in relation to our priorities in the next phase of Brexit negotiations. Disregarding the fact that the North voted to Remain, the fact that, three months ago, the Assembly voted to support a motion calling on the British to extend the transition period has been ignored. Just last week, they actually admitted publicly to their intention to break international law.

Considering all the important commitments that the British Government are not honouring, it is nothing short of absurd to me that we are standing here today discussing flags.

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

The flag regulations that are in front of us today are, as has been highlighted, presented as a consultation because they are being progressed in another place. We are asked simply to give our opinion on the matter, and that will be considered by the Secretary of State when he takes his decision.

Flags are controversial in Northern Ireland and are often not used for their purpose. They can be a sign of division and can be used to create feelings of unease.

I am always struck by how it is often the intention of the people who are putting them up not to celebrate or to create pride but to show negative or unhelpful things like the marking of division of territory and creating a sense of saying, "This is our place, not yours".

12.15 pm

'New Decade, New Approach' was a difficult document to develop. It was a bit of a pick-and-mix, with something for everyone in the audience. It was not so much of a deal as a collection of aspirations that were laced with items that were imperative on one side and not necessarily, but just, bearable to the other. However, it got this place back up and running, and with major issues like nurses' pay, health and education reform and then COVID-19, we are better served having this place functioning than not.

One item on the NDNA list was flag flying on additional designated days and from certain designated buildings. That is important to many in our community. It is not to me or to many of the people whom I represent, but it is to others, and in recognition of this being a shared space and a shared place, I am happy to support what is going through today.

I want to be clear that it is being delivered in the context of NDNA, which contains many more elements that are to be delivered and ones that I want to see introduced and introduced quickly. We need health service reform; we need to see the medical school at Magee delivered, and I welcome the progress on that to date; and we need to see the continued reform of these institutions in order to make them fairer, more democratic and more accountable to the people whom we serve. We want to see extra childcare hours for hard-working families and parents in order to ease the burden on their monthly pay packet. We want to see more social and affordable housing in order to tackle the unacceptable housing stress that there is here in the North. We want additional accountability for that housing matter, too, with a separate element in our Programme for Government (PFG) on housing so that we can measure its success. Those, we believe, are the issues that affect people. They impact their life and the matters that they want to see progress on. I want to see this place working, the people in it working and the people whom we are here to work for seeing improvements in their life. I want to see much more delivered than the flags.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

In response to the legislation, I acknowledge the sovereignty of our flags. Alliance has supported the designated days for many years. It shows respect for people who want the Union flag, and it shows respect for those who do not want the Union flag. What it says, which many others here have said, is that we are a community that appears to be divided. However, we are actually just one community; we are all from this place, and we want something better. New Decade, New Approach was that, and we all signed up to it.

The designated days have been equality proofed so many times. If I am to be in this Chamber, stuck in the middle here with you, all I ask is that we show each other respect. The flag is the flag; people want it and people do not want it, and it is time for us to move forward. As others said, we are in the middle of a pandemic. A virus is killing our people. We have an education system that is not being reformed and the Bengoa report has not been brought through from Health. There are a lot of priorities here. I respect this legislation, which is adding only three more days — the birthdays of the Duchess of Cambridge, the Duke of Cambridge and the Duchess of Cornwall. That will change when, unfortunately, people pass away and days are removed, and, when other people are born, days will be added. Those are designated days. All I will ask is this: we have a lot of work to do in this place so can we move on with that?

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

As other Members mentioned, this development arises out of New Decade, New Approach, and, as such, I welcome it. It has also been said that New Decade, New Approach represented a compromise, and I accept that there are things that people on the other side of the House might not like but are going to have to tolerate going through as part of that compromise and that there will be things that people on this side of the House might not be that fussed on either will but have to tolerate going through. Politics is the art of the possible, and New Decade, New Approach reflected a compromise between the two major political traditions that exist in this community. I think that this is a welcome development, and I speak as someone who puts a flag on his house during July and August. I do so because I am loyal to the United Kingdom and I am a loyal subject to Her Majesty the Queen. It is part of who I am and my identity. It is important to me, and it is something that I value. I value the flag of my country, and I want to see it treated with respect. That is why, for example, I do not like to see flags left on lamp posts to become tattered rags. The flag of our country should be treated with respect.

I welcome the provision of these additional flag days, and the expansion to two other government buildings. It is right and appropriate. Mention was made of the Department of Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and its list. My understanding of the list that we are now being brought into line with is that that is the minimum recommendation from the Government at Whitehall for the total number of days when the flag is flown. It may be that other days can be added to the list, either on a one-off basis, such as a significant national event, or permanently, if it is so decided.

I have heard some of the comments that have been made. I sat in the Chair where you are, Mr Speaker, the last time that Assembly Commission business was considered. It would be the worst possible thing for us as a community to descend into the trenches over the issue of the foundation of the state. People will have very different interpretations of it — I accept that — but we should show a bit of give and take towards each other. On the actual day itself, why should the flag not be on the roof of the Building? What would it cost? How would it hurt anyone, on that one-off day, to accede to that request and show a bit of generosity to people who believe different things to you, but want to work with you to run the country?

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The Member's time is up.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

As my colleague Emma Sheerin said, for some who are looking in on the debate there will be a certain and not unjustified sense of frustration that, in the middle of a global pandemic, with Brexit looming and all the other crises that are coming our way, here we are again talking about flags and emblems.

The debate is about more than flags. It is about us deciding what type of society and place we want to live in, how we are going to treat each other and, more importantly, how we acknowledge and respect each other's identities. In the context of Brexit, we are reminded of the British Government's total and unequivocal lack of respect for Ireland and the legally binding international agreement they signed up to. Talk is now emerging that the British Government are manoeuvring themselves to, perhaps, abandon and renege on major parts of European human rights law. Of course, in the North, we know only too well that the British Government have form in that regard. It is unsurprising then that the British Government refuse to implement key human rights components of the Good Friday Agreement, specifically a bill of rights.

The Good Friday Agreement provided for an equality of treatment duty on public authorities, and that statutory duty was explicitly singled out in the agreement to be enshrined within a bill of rights. It said:

"the formulation of a general obligation on government and public bodies fully to respect, on the basis of equality of treatment, the identity and ethos of both communities".

The Human Rights Commission, which was tasked with the formation of the bill, recommended in its 2008 advice to the Government:

"Public authorities must fully respect, on the basis of equality of treatment, the identity and ethos of both main communities in"

the North.

"No one relying on this provision may do so in a manner inconsistent with the rights and freedoms of others."

As my colleague said, look around the Building that we have to come to and work in everyday. I do not see my identity or ethos reflected anywhere in the Building. It is absolutely nowhere.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Will the Member give way?

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

No, I will finish if you do not mind.

Instead of asking us to roll out the flags to celebrate the birth of yet another unelected British royal, perhaps the British Government and this House might consider Sinn Féin's reasonable proposals on equality and neutrality: both flags or none at all.

The Secretary of State has said that he will read the Hansard report of this debate, so I take the opportunity to call on him and the Government to reflect on why they have yet to implement a bill of rights, and their apparent inability to honour international agreements and the commitments that they made in them. The British Government and this House need to demonstrate that we are serious about a peaceful and progressive shared future for the people on this island, a future that has to be based on equality, parity of esteem, tolerance and respect for all.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I was just again reading through the 'New Decade, New Approach' document that was published by the two Governments and led to the restoration of this institution. Ironically, one of the titles in the British Government's paper is, "Delivering on our Commitments". Delivering on our commitments: we have seen from the British Government in recent days what exactly that means. They will cherry-pick what they want to deliver, and they will deliver what suits them when it suits them, and sometimes it will never suit them. That is where the difficulty lies with the proposal. This is a take-note debate, and, at the end of this, we will vote that we have taken note of it. That should be in no way interpreted by the Secretary of State or by anyone in or beyond the Chamber that we support the notion that we need to fly more flags, because we do not. What we need to do is ensure that the parts of the paper that was published by the two Governments and that are the responsibility of the Assembly are implemented in full. That will cause challenges on either side of the House, but we have to do that. What the Governments do with their commitments, we will see, but they cannot cherry-pick. We have seen this from the British Government time and time again.

When you read through what is entitled:

"Annex A: UK Government Commitments to Northern Ireland"

it is as though those with an Irish identity do not exist. The UK Government — one of the co-guarantors of the Good Friday Agreement — seem to have forgotten that they signed up to the Good Friday Agreement, that the institutions are built on the Good Friday Agreement and that a significant and growing proportion of the population in this part of the island is Irish, wants to be seen as Irish and wants their identity recognised and acknowledged, but the Government do not do that in any part of this document.

The clear message that I am sending out, through Hansard, is this: the vote will go through today, but it is not an endorsement of the proposal. What we as a society have to do is acknowledge that there are different identities on this island, and they have to be acknowledged not only in word but in deed and in symbolism. Flags are about marking territory. Flags are a symbol of power; that you have power in a certain area or that you have control of a certain territory. You can put one above this Building or one on a flagpole somewhere, and they will send out the same message: it is about power. What we have here is power-sharing, so in terms of symbols and in our acknowledgement of this society, there has to be equality or neutrality in that regard.

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

To say that flags are a vexed subject in this place would be to understate matters. No one in this part of the world is ever given to understatement, certainly not those in the Assembly. These regulations, as Members have said, implement one particular commitment in the New Decade, New Approach agreement, which was signed at the beginning of this year, on increasing designated flag days.

I want to say two connected things about today's regulations: the first is about respect; and the second is about consistency. First, on respect, it cannot be said often enough that Northern Ireland is a shared space, and it will continue to be, whatever our constitutional future. Mutual respect cannot simply be a phrase; it must be ingrained in how we think and talk about one another, our identities, our symbols and the space that we share. It is often said that we talk far too much about flags and identity. Many of the young people who leave here and cringe at the idea of coming back do so because they feel weighed down by the monotony of debates over symbolism and identity.

It is true that we talk too much about the questions of flags and identity, but it is also true that we do not talk about them in the right way. Too often, we do not speak respectfully about what is valued and precious to others. We are quick to take offence but are slow to see why others might be offended, so it is worth my saying clearly that I respect the Union flag, and I respect the importance of the flag to many people in Northern Ireland and, indeed, in the Chamber. In response to what my constituency colleague Mr Stalford said, I do not just tolerate symbols of Britishness or, indeed, symbols of other things; I hope that I actively respect them. The flag may not command my loyalty, but it should command my respect. If it matters to my neighbours, some of my friends, many of my constituents and, indeed, many of my Assembly colleagues, it should matter to me. Indeed, it is incumbent on those of us who seek constitutional change on this island to be clear that, if we are serious about having respect for Britishness in Ireland, it needs to be done not in a grudging way but in a clear and positive way.

However, to be clear, mutual respect also means that, in addition to the additional designated flag days, we need to have a better approach to unauthorised flag flying in streets and neighbourhoods across Northern Ireland. In many communities, flag flying clearly has the consent, either active or passive, of the people who live there. However, in other places, there is limited, or no, consent. Many of my constituents in places like Carryduff, Rosetta or Finaghy live in communities that are proud of their integrated nature. They have a multiplicity of identities and constitutional viewpoints, but they also dislike public spaces being used to assert one viewpoint or identity for large parts of the year. Very often, the people who put up the flags are not known to the people of those communities, let alone accountable to them.

I welcome what Mr Stalford said about tattered rags. He is completely right: anybody who cares about a flag, whatever national flag it may be, should not want to see it become a tattered rag that intimidates people. However, in the absence of an agreed and consistent approach to regulation, many communities feel powerless on the issue. They do not want to remove all symbols of identity — I certainly do not — rather they want more transparency and accountability over these matters, as well as the ability to have their voice heard.

The two points are interrelated: respect for tolerance and symbols of identity but a consistency of approach. That is why we need to see the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition, which is another part of New Decade, New Approach, report to the First Ministers to create a more consistent approach on the interrelated issue of flags.

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

Accommodation can be reached. In the darkest of times, accommodation was reached on flags. In this time of turmoil, I recall a different time of turmoil. Tuesday 3 March, I, along with my teammates, was training in a cut-and-thrust, dogged training session in Davitt Park in Lurgan when one of our joint managers, Brian Canavan, was called away urgently because there had just been a double murder in his family bar in Poyntzpass.

In the following days, two great leaders walked the main street in Poyntzpass together. They quelled anger and fear by their actions and their words. The spirit of accommodation exhibited by Seamus Mallon and David Trimble in those days has been shared by everybody in the community of Poyntzpass. Fortunately, the following month the Good Friday Agreement was signed. Further subsequent agreements were brokered in Poyntzpass by Tom Canavan, God rest his soul, and by Robert Turner.

The following year, that same team was in the Ulster final. The local GAA club approached the Orange Order, seeking guidance on where to source orange and white bunting. I believe that the GAA and the Orange Order worked together to take down the red, white and blue bunting, which had been up since the Twelfth, in order to erect the orange and white bunting for the Ulster final. Fortunately, my team was victorious on that day.

That spirit of accommodation still exists in Poyntzpass. The community there knows that we live in a shared home place. That is the type of shared home place that I want to work towards on this island: a new Ireland of tolerance and respect and ambition; a new Ireland of energy, endeavour, enterprise and equality; a new Ireland where we spill our sweat and nobody's blood. Let us all work towards that new Ireland, a new shared home place.

Ar scáth a chéile a mhaireas na daoine. We rely on one another for shelter.

George Robinson (DUP, East Londonderry)

I welcome the proposals, which correct mistakes in the original regulations from 2000 and ensure that Northern Ireland is brought into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. In other words, equality for Northern Ireland. When the original regulations were drafted, the Queen Mother was still alive, as was Princess Margaret. With their deaths, there was a net loss of days on which the flag could fly. New members were added to the royal family, for example, the Duchess of Cambridge. Her birthday is a day on which the flag is flown in celebration. The proposed new arrangements ensure that Northern Ireland can mark that occasion, along with the rest of the United Kingdom. Indeed, under the proposals, Northern Ireland will have three additional days.

The proposals recognise that change occurs and that a proactive response to change is essential to ensure that Northern Ireland maintains the same statutory days as the rest of the United Kingdom.

For many in Northern Ireland, the ability to mark significant birthdays by the flying of our national flag is welcome, both culturally and historically. I sincerely believe that these proposals are a positive move and urge the Assembly to support the motion.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I was to call Dolores Kelly but she is not in the Chamber.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

John O'Dowd said that some people seem to have forgotten that they had signed up to what he called the Good Friday Agreement. That is a message that he and his party should take themselves. Whatever else the Belfast Agreement can be faulted for, it involved — we were told — an acceptance that Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom. If that is correct, how can there be resistance to the flying of the flag of the United Kingdom on government buildings in Northern Ireland? If there is a recognition that we are part of the United Kingdom, one inevitably follows the other. Instead, we have had today, particularly from the first Sinn Féin Member to speak, Ms Sheerin, was bile against all things British and the flag. Yet these are the people who tell us that a great new dawn awaits us in a new Ireland. Here they are today, happy to take all the privileges of being part of the United Kingdom, bursting to get us out of the United Kingdom, promising a new Ireland and, yet, within Northern Ireland, they cannot even accept the flying of the flag.

A Member

Will the Member give way?

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I do not get extra time so I will not.

Ms Ennis said that she sees nothing in this Building that accommodates her culture. My goodness, if I walk into this Building and walk up the steps from the main hall, I am faced with the portrait of an IRA commander who was responsible for multiple murders of my constituents and others.

To get back to the regulations. I welcome the fact that they are bringing things up to date. I welcome the fact that the two Sinn Féin Ministers — Communities and Finance — will now have the Union flag flying from their headquarters. I welcome the additional days. However, I say to the Assembly Commission that there is a test coming for respect within this community: 7 June 2021 is the centenary of the formation — the first sitting — of the Northern Ireland Parliament. If the flag flies on this Building, it will show whether or not there is any respect, from the Assembly Commission and those who govern this place, for the people who want to be part of the United Kingdom. If the flag does not fly, it will be a calculated and deliberate insult to everyone who values their place in the United Kingdom and another confirmation of just what would await us if we were so foolish to leave the United Kingdom.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

Clearly, we have more pressing matters to discuss today than the flying of flags, so I will not speak for long on the issue. I put on record my opposition to the extra days, contained in the motion. I believe that we, as a society, need to get away from the flying of communal flags. As a socialist, I do not support the expansion of flying flags to honour, and to glorify, any monarchy, never mind the British monarchy, in the role of British imperialism in Ireland, which, for the record, was not good for any working-class communities in the North.

This motion on flags, of course, stems from agreements that were signed up to by Sinn Féin and the DUP in the New Decade, New Approach agreement and, in a small way, sums up a major problem with the agreement; namely, how it doubles down on the two traditions — a schema — where communal forces are elevated in politics and certain sectarian practices are given cover by the law. For example, this agreement on flag flying came alongside a proposal to create a commissioner, whose tasks will include

"protecting the Ulster British tradition"

as if such a thing was an endangered species and not the historic ideology of elites here.

All these things are connected to the way that the state is the ultimate guarantor and cements sectarianism at the heart of it. People Before Profit, for our part, will continue to be a voice for social politics, inside and outside the Chamber, and will have no truck with this approach.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I may not use the five minutes. I will speak first on behalf of the Business Committee. Thanks to all the Members who made a contribution. I intend to be very brief in concluding the debate. The Business Committee's intention in bringing forward this motion was to give Members an opportunity to express their views on proposed amendments to the Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000. The Business Committee has not considered the proposals or taken a view on them as a corporate body. However, the Secretary of State, when he wrote to the Speaker on 1 September, asked that the Assembly considers these draft regulations, which is what we are about today.

The Secretary of State asked for the Assembly to provide a report of its views by 14 September 2020. Consequently and in order to meet that very tight deadline, the Business Committee was required to ensure that the Assembly had an opportunity to debate those proposals today. Members have now set out their views on them. I will not go through those views on behalf of the Business Committee, although I may pick them up myself. The Official Report records those views. The Business Committee has been advised, Mr Speaker, that you will send a copy of today's Official Report to the Secretary of State, who may then choose to amend the proposed regulations before laying them for approval by resolution of each House of Parliament. On behalf of the Business Committee, I ask all Members to support the motion.

I will now speak on behalf of the Ulster Unionist Party and myself. First, I commend all the Members who spoke for the manner and tone of the speeches on this issue. Flags have, for many years, been an issue of pride from a unionist perspective or a nationalist perspective, depending on the flag that you like. However, they have also been a cause of much angst and many sad debates in this country. These are regulations that the Secretary of State is bringing before us as part of New Decade, New Approach, which, as was pointed out by a number of Members, is a mixed bag of regulations and priorities for many of us. We will have to show each other a lot of respect to bring it into line.

A number of points were picked out by Members today. The motion was moved by Keith Buchanan, who talked about the value of British identity to unionists. That is something that I and the Ulster Unionist Party share. Emma Sheerin has her background and her pain, and she does not feel that her Irish identity has been celebrated. However, I am British and have lived for over 48 years somewhere which is supposed to be British and part of the United Kingdom. You want to try it in my shoes, with people picking at you all your life from 1972; it is not an easy ride. I am proud of the flag. I understand the need to be respectful and fly it appropriately. I do not see that as thumbing the nose to anybody's identity at all.

Colin McGrath is not here now but he was actually very good. He talked about how, sometimes, it is controversial and has negative connotations. However, he at least showed the respect that has probably been missing at times over the past few years with regard to the institutions not running. He indicated the need, which is probably borne out of the Good Friday Agreement, for us all to move a little bit and show respect; that was welcome. Kellie Armstrong talked about the sovereignty of the flag. She also talked about the priorities that need to be addressed. Whilst this debate might be important to some of us and less important to others, there are other priorities that need to be talked about. Christopher Stalford actually spoke really well. I do not think that he is here, but I will give him a compliment. He spoke about the need to fly flags appropriately. He spoke about his distaste for tattered flags on lamp posts. I do not think that too many in the House, including me, would disagree with that statement. He talked about the need to embrace the centenary and show generosity, which obviously works both ways.

Sinéad Ennis spoke about her frustration about this type of society and how we treat each other, but I believe that that is a mirror that we need to hold up to ourselves. Matthew O'Toole talked about respect and consistency, which I echo. Justin McNulty spoke, in Irish, about relying on each other for shelter. I cannot do it in Irish, Justin, but thank you for those words. Jim Allister reminded us of the need to show generosity in next year's centenary celebrations. The final comments were made by Gerry Carroll. That is why I will not be a socialist. If socialism cannot show anything but opposition and fails to show tolerance or accommodation, it will not be for me.

Question put and agreed to. Resolved:

That this Assembly takes note of the proposed changes to the Flags Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2000 as set out in the draft Flags (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) (No 2) Regulations 2020.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I ask Members to take their ease for a moment while we change the Table.

(Mr Principal Deputy Speaker [Mr Stalford] in the Chair)

Private Members' Business

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I beg to move

That this Assembly recognises the role that repurposed and attractive residential space above retail premises can play in promoting the success of town centres across Northern Ireland; notes that making high streets high-quality locations to live as well as work can aid the economic recovery from COVID-19; and calls on the Minister for Communities to consider establishing a living over the shop grant scheme to assist landlords to convert space above retail premises into residential accommodation.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

The Business Committee has agreed to allow up to one hour and 30 minutes for the debate. The proposer of the motion will have 10 minutes in which to propose and 10 minutes in which to make a winding-up speech. One amendment has been selected and is published on the Marshalled List.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

This year has brought challenges that were previously unimagined by Members in every corner of the House. We face a battle that was entirely unforeseen, and it is hard to estimate when we will be able to resume some element of normality. When the Assembly was restored in January this year, after a long absence, we joined with a keen desire to confront issues that have long plagued this country. One such issue is the decline of the high street and economic activity in our town centres, coupled with chronic housing stress. Of course, those particular challenges long predate the viral pandemic, and societal trends have long forecast fewer people shopping and living in our town centres. With that in mind, we need to be prepared for the realistic possibility that COVID-19 will vastly accelerate the decline of the high street and to take action to mitigate that.

That is why I support the establishment of a Living over the Shop (LOTS) grant scheme and call on the Minister for Communities to take that into serious consideration, alongside direct actions across the Executive to reinvent our town centres and address the lack of affordable housing stock.

The Northern Ireland Executive first introduced the Living over the Shop scheme in 2002 to provide grants for the conversion of empty or underused space above rental retail and commercial premises into private rental units. That grant scheme ran until 2008/09 and contributed to the creation of 101 new properties in our town centres before it closed due to budgetary pressures.

An analysis of the need and demand for a new LOTS-type initiative, commissioned by the Department for Communities, was published in January 2017. The analysis reported that, over the last decade, demand has strengthened considerably for private rented units in our town centres due to reduced mortgage availability to younger householders. That demand is combined with an increase in the vacancy levels of non-domestic properties across Northern Ireland.

Another report commissioned by the Department indicated that, in 2016, the vacancy rate of non-domestic properties in 41 towns across Northern Ireland was estimated to be 22·3%, which is considerably higher than any other UK region. It was a total of 3,595 non-domestic property vacancies, of which 1,015 were quantified by Northern Irish councils as being suitable for residential conversion.

Those statistics are clear and are visible proof that the total vacancies of non-domestic properties in town centres more than satisfies supply if we are proactive in encouraging conversion under the Living over the Shop scheme. That potential supply could meet a convincing demand.

As I alluded to, there are substantive demographic and population trends that impact considerably on housing needs. Northern Ireland's population is expected to grow by an estimated 8·6% by 2039, taking the total population to over two million. That increase, coupled with an ageing population and changing trends in home ownership and composition, places further pressure on the need to improve housing supply and stock across Northern Ireland.

Age-based demographics also tell us that Northern Ireland is projected to face the challenge of supporting an ageing population, with the number of people over the age of 65 set to increase from approximately 260,000 in 2016 to approximately 410,000 by 2039 — an increase of almost 60% over 23 years. A falling birth rate also suggests that the working-age population will decrease. That will have the same knock-on effect and implications for housing. The supply of smaller homes — one- or two-bed units — will be important in meeting demand, particularly as younger generations have smaller families, on average, and as older people seek to downsize from larger homes in their latter years.

Whilst this serves as evidence for the long-term challenges that we are set to encounter, we must also recognise the present task at hand in relation to COVID-19. The viral pandemic has already compounded the difficulties faced within many Departments, and we need to be realistic about how that will directly impact the high street. Emerging evidence suggests that lockdown is set to change consumer and business behaviour on a long-lasting basis, with a more permanent shift towards working from home and favouring of digital retail. The knock-on effect of less footfall has been well-documented in Belfast in previous months. Offices adapting to a new normal and droves of staff working remotely have weakened retail and hospitality units that were heavily reliant on their custom.

In addition, the seismic shift in internet sales presents a real threat to the high street. Online sales have soared and now account for over a third of all sales across the United Kingdom, up from less than a fifth the previous year. Statistics produced by retail experts Springboard estimate that the footfall in our high streets fell by a staggering 79% in April 2020, compared with the same period last year.

That evidence very clearly raises profound questions about the future of our town centres, which must be scrutinised and addressed to prevent the continued decline of our Northern Ireland high street. If COVID-19 continues to accelerate the shift towards online retailing and service access, shop vacancy rates on the high street and in retail parks could rise rapidly, as stores inevitably become financially unviable.

With all that in mind, we must ask ourselves whether now is the time to seriously re-image and reimagine our approach to urban planning. In addressing the onset of the struggles we face with COVID-19 we must now be willing to reflect the changing role of town centres, from retail-led to multifunctional.

With respect to behavioural change, we must recognise that there is less demand for retail space in our urban centres, and rather than letting high streets fall into urban decay, we can revive our urban spaces by repurposing them by replacing shops and offices with desirable and affordable accommodation.

Further provision of housing in our town centres has the potential to generate social and economic benefits, including increased investment and spending, and the creation of jobs. Following that path has the potential to curve behavioural changes and to broaden the appeal of our town and city centres. The case for the demand of such residential properties is compelling, and, in establishing a Living over the Shop scheme, we can grasp the opportunity to revitalise and re-image our town centres.

With a vast array of vacant non-domestic properties in our town and city centres, there is a role for government to take the initiative in encouraging such plans to repurpose urban centres. Now is the time for action; now is the time to re-image our towns. I fully recognise that a Living over the Shop grant scheme cannot in itself address the challenges facing Northern Ireland's housing supply and regeneration of local communities, but it is a start, and it can help set the tone following the global pandemic that we faced in COVID-19.

As a party, we have, in the past, raised with local councils the prospect of town centre regeneration challenge funds, and the fact that chambers of trade, and others, could bid for annual money to help them develop a range of projects in town centres. We are clear that there is a need for a comprehensive look at whether the current structures with regard to housing are fit for purpose. We must accept that there is a need to work together — holistically, but proactively — in the days ahead. It is vital that any future programme reflects the challenges of COVID-19 and market fluctuations, as well as the ideas of those who stand to be affected if it is to command confidence and, ultimately, realise its clear potential. We accept that that is not something that one Minister should be left to take forward on their own. The establishment of a high street task force would provide a useful vehicle to take forward the work in a timely and effective manner.

I appeal to the House to support me in my desire to re-image and reimagine our town centres, as we react to one of the most affected periods in our time, the reaction and the response of government in tackling the decline of our high street, and to the demand for social housing in a post-COVID environment.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Before I call the Member to move the amendment, can this auld Belfast councillor welcome that auld Belfast councillor back from his period in isolation? You are very welcome back, Mr McCann.

I call Mr Fra McCann to move the amendment.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

How long have I got, Chair?

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Ten minutes.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

That is good. Cheann Comhairle, I begin by thanking you and all Members who have sent me kind words during the course of my illness. It was much appreciated.

The motion before the House calls on the Minister for Communities to:

"to consider establishing a living over the shop grant scheme to assist landlords to convert space above retail premises into residential accommodation."

On the face of it, that seems to be a good proposal. The motion also states that such space can play an important role in promoting the success of our town centres, and notes that:

"making high streets high-quality locations to live as well as work can aid the economic recovery from COVID-19".

Again, on the face of it, that proposal seems fine and, of course, we should consider all proposals that come to the table for discussion. However, I wonder if that is the right way to pursue this allocation of housing. We have always believed that any proposal that helps in dealing with the dereliction of the many business premises with empty spaces above those premises needs to be looked at, but it cannot be looked at in isolation. It must be looked at alongside the other serious difficulties faced in the housing sector.

The proposers of the motion do not speak of the problems which that area might bring, especially those we saw previously when we pursued the policy of living above the shop. It is about not only the cost, but which areas will benefit from the proposal. Several other thoughts come to mind. How will areas for development be chosen? How much will the development cost? Who will control the new build? How will the spaces be allocated when completed? Will they be allocated on need?

The motion does not lay out the many difficulties that there will be in overcoming the serious problems of access to the proposed homes. Moreover, regional planning policies state that they would need to comply with normal planning and environmental considerations. Facilities for the storage of fuel and refuge, and space for drying clothes, for instance, will be required. What about parking? Planning talks of level access which would be considered in the circumstances of each case. How will rent be set in the new refurbished properties?

Will rents remain in the ownership of the property owner, will they be handed to the social housing provider to allocate from increasing waiting lists, or will they be purely a private development? One of the papers that we received listed rent charges in the private rented sector throughout the North, but they were old figures. Who will set rents to ensure that they are affordable? Those are just a few thoughts that come to mind.

I have looked through the research papers, many of which are based on English schemes that were heavily funded. However, the paper provided by Public and Corporate Economic Consultants, who, working back then for the Department for Communities, issued a report in September 2016, stated that Belfast was identified as an area with significant challenges regarding its non-dependent domestic vacancies and that the scheme was likely to work only in areas outside Belfast city centre. In fact, it seems to remove Belfast city centre from any possibility of developing a LOTS housing scheme, especially at a time, only a number of years ago, when there was a campaign in inner-city communities to have housing in all its aspects built in the centre of Belfast.

I was a member of the old Social Development Committee back then, and, when we looked at the town centre regeneration strategy, we realised early on that housing was crucial to the future of towns and villages. The strategies offered hope, and people were disappointed that they never materialised. Strategies for the future of towns and villages can work only with other sectors, especially local government. In fact, today many councils are actively working on the development of major proposals, major shape-changing schemes that will change our communities for the better and include business, sport, environment, housing and much more. City deals take in council areas surrounding and including Belfast. Derry and councils in the north-west have their own city deals, as do other councils that are working on growth deals. All those will have, as part of their proposition, housing growth over the next 10 to 20 years. Councils need to be convinced that the LOTS scheme will provide the type of housing that will make a difference to their area.

Those who table the motion need to work with local government to ensure that all aspects of dereliction are dealt with, including how to deal with the dereliction of town centres, especially shops and wasteland that have lain vacant for many years. I again emphasise that that should be part of a strategy, not just a scheme chosen in isolation from a housing strategy. Those who tabled the motion know that housing in all its aspects is right up there for the Minister. She has made a commitment to come in front of the Committee and to cover any issues that we want to raise. She has spoken of her commitment to start to deal with the tangled web that makes up housing and to put a strategy in place that deals with the many problems that we face. I have no doubt that she will look at the motion and do her best to deal with the matter.

Again, I emphasise that this cannot be done in isolation from all other aspects of housing. I argue that our amendment offers the best way forward and ask those who tabled the motion to reconsider it and allow the amendment to have the unanimous support of the Chamber. Let this be part of an overall strategy that will ensure that all future decisions on housing developments and allocations are based on objective need.

A chairde, we are in difficult times, but I have no doubt that we will work our way through this. When we do, we will need to work together to provide decent housing. We have a Minister for Communities who is deeply committed to tackling the housing issue, especially the provision of modern housing for all people in need. I ask that you support the amendment.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Thank you. May I ask you to move the amendment formally?

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I beg to move the following amendment:

Leave out all after "repurposed" and insert: "and accessible space above commercial properties could potentially play in revitalising town and city centres by providing additional affordable, accessible and high-quality accommodation; further recognises this potential to increase the supply of homes to meet demand; acknowledges that increasing this type of housing in high streets can help assist in the social and economic recovery from COVID-19; and calls on the Minister for Communities and her Executive colleagues to explore this option to reduce housing demand based on objective need."

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

Every Member will be all too familiar with the long housing waiting lists across our constituencies: 38,000 applicants in total but with fewer than 2,000 new social housing units being built every year. With the greatest need being in my constituency, Foyle, where we have nearly 3,000 households on the housing waiting list, I welcome any innovative measure that will help to ensure that everyone across the North has a roof above their head. I commend the Members for Upper Bann and North Belfast for tabling the motion.

I will also support the amendment, which I believe to be complementary, as a Living over the Shop scheme that begins and ends with grants to landlords has more potential pitfalls than benefits.

A 2016 report by the Department, to which Fra McCann referred, looked into the need and demand for such a scheme. I am sure that the Minister is familiar with that report, and updated information on the data provided would be useful for a fresh look. I hope, however, that the Minister will go beyond it and undertake a comprehensive assessment of the viability of such a scheme, taking into account how many homes such a scheme could create in each constituency, affordability and town planning issues in terms of convenient access to public services and facilities. An updated assessment would also have to reckon with the brutal reality that many shops in towns and city centres will struggle to stay open in the coming months and years.

There are few areas of public policy that housing does not touch. The labour market, education and health are chief among them. That is why we in the SDLP have called for a 20-year housing strategy that would incorporate supply, affordability, regulation of the growing private rental sector and tackling homelessness. The solution to our housing crisis is not simply increasing supply; it is about increasing the supply of affordable high-quality housing for sustainable communities.

Encouraging private landlords to develop the empty spaces above commercial properties requires careful consideration and strategic planning. There are clear benefits from repopulating our town centres and generating much more economic activity. Living over the Shop schemes make use of existing infrastructure and provide housing much more quickly than the time it takes to build entirely new houses. While we all want to see new homes built or provided, there is a risk of rushing in with grants and ending up with housing that is unaffordable and unsuitable for those in greatest housing need. The departmental report that I mentioned cited research that showed that city centre living was most likely to appeal to young, single professionals. They certainly need housing and are part of what makes city centre living so vibrant, but the majority of people I meet who are in housing need are families with children.

It is not just a case of making space above commercial properties habitable; we should identify the potential pitfalls and learn the lessons of such a scheme in England in the late 1990s. The weakness of that scheme stemmed from its failure to consider access to public services. Families, in particular, need convenient to doctors' surgeries, schools and play parks, as well as needing parking. Without consideration of those issues, accommodation above shops will, I fear, promote only transience rather than the long-term sustainable communities that we want and need to build.

I support the amendment.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I, too, support the motion. I thank Mr Buckley for having moved the motion, indicating the importance of a new Living over the Shop scheme or something like it to promote and encourage our town centres and to address the change in retailing and the high level of vacancies there. There is a problem, and we need to address it.

Once, the pressure on town centres was from out-of-town shopping centres. As others have indicated, it has moved on from that. During this recent period, the effects of COVID and having to live with the virus have exacerbated that situation, accelerating the move to online retailing and reducing footfall and turnover in our town centre shops. That additional pressure has, in turn, created further vacancies, and it is important that we arrest that decline and get footfall into town centres. If there are vacancies, it makes our town centres less attractive, so it is important that we address those vacancies and encourage schemes such as the Living over the Shop scheme that can reuse that vacant property. As Mr Buckley said, we may need to look at the overall planning policies in our town centres. There is no point in having planning policies that assume the shopping patterns of yesterday still; we need to be more flexible.

I recall, when coming to the Assembly, getting temporary accommodation for an office in a town centre. It was the only location that I could get with disability-friendly access. I literally had frontage access and no shop window, but I had to apply for temporary accommodation for a number of years. Eventually, that moved on.

It is important that we look at reusing our town centres and getting sustainable use from them, and I have no doubt that living in our town centres is an important element of that. It is important that we refresh our planning policies and the grants that are available to support them.

As has been indicated, there was a previous Living over the Shop scheme that supported 11 areas throughout Northern Ireland. My constituency, particularly the town centres of Larne and Carrickfergus, was not supported. Many other town centres were not supported by the previous scheme, and, therefore, the potential for the scheme to help those town centres and help address the level of homelessness in those areas is perhaps greater than in other areas.

In moving forward, it is important that we come up with a scheme that will work, not one that will tick all our own personal boxes. Other schemes have tried to improve the town centres in my constituency. The Heritage Lottery Fund has been useful for some properties, but it involves specifications that mean that other property owners leave properties vacant and do not think it is worthwhile, perhaps because the property is in a conservation area where there is a high cost to follow what is required by the fund. It is important that we adapt our planning policies to make sure that something happens and to make sure that the high level of vacancies is addressed to bring life back into those town centres and provide the homes that we all want.

Mr Durkan talked about how there was potential to bring about quick change. The buildings are already there; we are talking about modifying buildings. I suspect that, in terms of the overall cost, it is probably more efficient to use those buildings than to build new homes from scratch. We have a homelessness issue throughout Northern Ireland, not just in some areas. There are huge pressures in finding homes for families and individuals in our towns and cities in Northern Ireland, and it is important that we come up with a scheme that will apply widely and not just concentrate on some areas.

I would like to highlight the report that was published in 2016. That was a useful review of the Living over the Shop scheme and is very detailed. For instance, it identifies 30 properties in Larne with the potential to be used if such a scheme is rolled out. There are 10 in Ballymena and 20 in Carrickfergus, which is the other town centre in my constituency.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. In reference to the report, does he agree that it is clear that the evidence and the analysis of a Living over the Shop scheme is there and in place and that it is now about getting on with the job and delivering practical schemes that support our town centres?

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member has an additional minute.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I agree entirely with the Member.

The report was published in, I think, September 2016, and it has sat on the shelf for virtually four years when the Assembly did not meet. Homelessness got worse during that period, yet the ideas in the report have sat there and have not been addressed. It is important that we deal with it now, and it is important that we come up pragmatic schemes that will work. If they do not work with those who own the property, do not work with potential tenants and do not work with other potential partners, perhaps housing associations, they will not happen. It is important, in designing a scheme, that we get one that will work so that we can provide the homes that are badly needed, revitalise our town centres and improve the footfall and the feeling of safety among the people who live there.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

I have listened to the debate today. I can see the merits in the motion and amendment, but I have to say, on behalf of the Alliance Party, that we will support the motion, not the amendment. The reason is this: had the grant scheme been included in the amendment, we could have supported both. Both are well intentioned, and both are needed, but the grant scheme is necessary.

The 2016 report that Mr Beggs talked about has already identified that businesses, landlords and Departments recognise the need for a grant income to convert the spaces above commercial properties to make them habitable. Therefore, the Department for Communities is already aware of the need to grant support for the establishment of the Living over the Shop scheme. In New Decade, New Approach, all Executive parties agreed to a housing outcome — I am looking at Mr Durkan because it was an SDLP approach that was brought forward. I look forward to seeing that outcome being developed with clear indicators to achieve better housing. I think, to be honest, that the Living over the Shop scheme is one of the aspects that needs to be concluded if we are to achieve the amount of housing that we need for all of our people across Northern Ireland.

It is time to move forward the option to develop more living spaces, given that the demand for housing is growing. That is why I cannot go with an amendment that talks about a Minister who is very committed to housing going to Executive colleagues to talk about it. In the current situation, there is so much on the Executive's plate that I want to see action as opposed to just considering what might happen. I believe that the Minister is a person who will take this forward.

The reason why we need a grant for the Living over the Shop scheme is that shop owners might not be able to provide the money to develop the units. Think of how many towns, outside Belfast, have charity shops. They cannot afford to develop residential places above. Through this grant, there is an opportunity for us to do something different, and a grant that comes with a caveat — it is not a contract — can provide this. So, we can consider things like that which Mr McCann brought forward. For instance, we can ensure that bins are not stored on the street by providing somewhere to store them on the residential property. We can ensure that the living space is sustainable by saying that it must include alternative fuel sources to reduce carbon emissions so that we meet our targets. Innovative alternatives to oil tanks are desperately needed if we are to move away from fossil fuels.

The space needs to be inclusive and not exclude people with limited mobility. An awful lot of those in our older generation are looking for town-centre living because they no longer drive; they use public transport. Living together in towns, and being together safely in towns, is more important than sitting in a three-bedroom house in the middle of nowhere. We have to consider lifts and accessibility options for residential properties that are on the first floor. There needs to be consideration of rates and water charges because, as we know, commercial premises would have to split those from the residential premises.

We need to think about some other way of making houses and house space available, given that so little land is available. We know that work has been done. The mapping out of land has been done, for instance, in Belfast, and the amount of land available for new housing is very low. Meanwhile, a number of single men are still denied access to the housing market, and a number of older people face the bedroom tax. We pay that for them at the moment, but the time will come when more and more people move on to the benefits system and face the bedroom tax. We could consider the town centre housing fund in Scotland, which is a 50:50 mix of grant and loan funding that could reduce the cost to government.

For years, architects and town planners have said to us that we need to develop town- and city-centre living through services that make these spaces welcoming and inclusive rather than frightening and isolating. The last thing that we want to do is to put people into places in which they feel uncomfortable. We have the opportunity to say to the owners of commercial premises that we have social housing options and social landlords who could come in and take over the space for them. They could buy that space and develop it in a way that would be good for people and meet the objective need. There is no point in putting someone into a house if they are not able to climb the stairs, or they are unable to afford to heat it, or it is not the right space for them.

I welcome the motion today. Living over the Shop is one way in which we can revitalise the centres of our towns and cities. However, it needs to be done. It does not need to be talked about any more. We need the grants to become a reality. I appreciate, absolutely, that money will be extraordinarily tight over the next wee while, but can —.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member's time is up.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Thank you.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

At the crux of Sinn Féin's proposed amendment is the need to bring the necessary focus on the fact that many people and families live in housing stress — as a number of Members have already outlined — and that we simply do not have the housing stock to meet that need. We need to immediately begin to address that. I am sure that Members would agree that that would be a far more effective use of public finances. We need our towns and city centres to be vibrant and thriving places to live and work, but that cannot be at the expense of those who are in the greatest need of a home.

New Decade, New Approach brings focus to build housing in locations of objective need. Sinn Féin believe that adequate housing is a human right and we will continue to promote that across the island. The level of homelessness in the North/South needs to be addressed and Sinn Féin has an ambitious and viable target of building social and affordable housing, as is in line with objective need.

While this motion and the amendment talk specifically about our town and city centres, as a rural MLA for South Down it would be remiss of me not to mention that rural housing needs have been neglected for far too long. The Housing Executive retains oversight of new builds, but it has a poor record of coordinating new builds in line with objective needs and the Rural Needs Act.

Housing development in rural locations has missed its target over each of the last five years, and the Housing Executive's rural and place shaping teams need to work with rural communities and their representatives to examine housing needs and to support housing associations in the delivery of new build schemes to address those needs.

Approximately 60 housing association houses are sold each year, along with 300 Housing Executive homes. As we know, that stock has never been replaced. New build is not adequately located in the areas of highest need. The latest housing figures show that there are over 37,000 applicants on the social housing waiting list, and of those applicants more than 26,000 are in housing stress.

The private rented sector plays a big role in meeting housing need, as does the social housing sector. Therefore, there has been a significant increase in the proportion of households with children which are living in private rented accommodation. As the Member for Foyle has already outlined, research that was undertaken by the Centre for Cities in 2015 has shown that city centre residents are more likely to be young, and single students or professionals. However, almost a third of those who are experiencing housing stress are families. Indeed, many families are already struggling to obtain their own home in unfair conditions of overcrowding, and young families are still being penalised for the housing crash from over a decade ago. This amendment brings a further emphasis to support them.

The DUP's motion does, on the surface, look to have merit, but it excludes public money from being used to help support those who need it most into accommodation, on the basis of objective need. Sinn Féin supports efforts to revitalise our towns and city centres, and we are very much open to exploring the best options to enhance a social and economic recovery. However, the social aspect is completely omitted from the DUP's motion, which is why we find it difficult to support it as it stands.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Go ahead.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Does the Member accept that 11 areas had the scheme and that it had not been afforded to many other parts of Northern Ireland, so that should be a major consideration?

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I did not quite hear your comments.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Member give way?

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Yes, go ahead.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I remember the scheme back then, and I believe that it was brought in under housing-led regeneration, which had a particular focus. If you look at Belfast then the five areas that were chosen for it were five unionist areas, and there were very few resources pointed towards nationalist areas. Those were the facts of life for the scheme back then.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Thank you.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member has an additional minute.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Thank you, but I am going to conclude.

Sinn Féin's amendment is about maintaining the support and supply of accommodation necessary to help struggling families, along with our most vulnerable, to access housing, and to have security and dignity. Therefore, I ask Members to support the amendment.

Pat Catney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Lagan Valley)

Although COVID-19 has added focus to the need to aid the prosperity of our city centres, the issues impacting on them have long predated COVID-19, and they will exist even after we recover from the pandemic. The benefits of the Living over the Shop scheme are not just economic. We have a massive housing shortage and affordability issues, so anything that can be done to tackle that must be welcome.

Living over the Shop properties are also more affordable. They are more affordable to create than new residential builds, and, more importantly, they are cheaper to buyers and renters. Changes in demographics and household types are also apparent. Living over the Shop schemes provide vital accommodation to young and single-person households. We have a severe lack of one-bedroom and two-bedroom properties, which is putting stress on the private and social housing market. This is a simple and effective way of dealing with this.

Living over the Shop schemes are also tied into urban regeneration work. They revitalise town centres without the need for destruction and the eroding of character of our town centres. They enhance the areas, breathing life and vibrancy back into them. In fact, my mother and father lived above a shop in the city centre, and the only other two people who lived in behind that ring of steel that was then the commercial heart of Belfast were the caretaker and his wife, who lived above the Masonic lodge in Cornmarket. The point that I am trying to make by bringing this to your mind is that this has to be done with planning, and we cannot use a blunt instrument such as compulsory purchase to move out those people who find themselves living in city centres.

The benefit to our town and city centre economies cannot be more clear. As I said, my parents lived above the bar for most of their lives. They bought groceries from a family-owned store across the road, bought food from the family-owned butchers on the next street and they bought their clothes from the family-owned stores next to them. In turn, these family businesses and their owners and their customers came into the bar and helped my parents to sustain their businesses. In the days of online shopping, these micro-economies are the only way to keep our towns and city centre businesses going.

Statistics show that our own town centres have an average of 20% non-domestic vacancy levels. A mix of grant and loan schemes for over the shop properties in Scotland have proven to be popular. This can bring populations into our city centres and, therefore, bring revenue into our city centre businesses. In closing, these schemes will help our small business owners, help to regenerate our cities and town centres and provide people with affordable and practical housing that allows them to live, prosper and enjoy the places where they live. It is a simple solution with a massive impact. I urge you all to support the amendment and the motion.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I support the motion and thank those who tabled it, but I cannot support the amendment for reasons, highlighted by my colleague Kellie Armstrong and which I do not need to repeat, around grants and other issues and, more importantly, the need to move from exploration to action. The motion provides a new opportunity, I believe, to —

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Member for giving way. I was going to interject during Ms Armstrong's speech. I certainly concur that it is the time for action rather than exploration, but will the Member accept that the motion that he is going to support merely calls on the Minister to "consider" such a scheme? That is the action that is about the same as asking the Minister to "explore" such a scheme, which the amendment calls for.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

The Member has an additional minute.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I am content with the wording of the motion. I am sure that the Member will agree that some of the reports that we have talked about have been around for years.

The motion provides a new opportunity to kick-start initiatives aimed at refreshing town centres. It also offers the potential to revitalise town centres by repurposing empty premises above shops, accommodation that, in many cases, has been vacant for some time or has been neglected or has fallen into disrepair. Such initiatives could provide additional housing at competitive prices also, simply by, you could suggest, looking upwards and provide opportunity to tackle the acute shortage of housing, particularly social and genuinely affordable housing, which, as we know, has led to spiralling rent and house prices in many parts of the country.

There is, I suggest, also potential economic benefit. The return of residents can benefit the business below commercially, provide potential staff perhaps and repopulate urban twilight zones. People will be interested in the local area, its upkeep and its amenities. There could also, in some instances, of course, be a greater contribution to local rates revenue. We should also try to harness the environmental benefit around us on this issue. Not driving to the shops or to work, but, rather, walking or cycling reduces congestion and, consequently, air pollution, which is good for the environment, of course.

There are, however, some matters on which I sound a note of caution. Living above the shop can have potential downsides. A previously desirable home may lose its allure if a retail outlet such as a bookshop downstairs were to close suddenly and a fried food outlet were to open in its place. There can be issues with social isolation arising from having no immediate neighbours, particularly for those who are vulnerable or in need of support or a social network, a neighbourhood feeling or, for some people, the feeling of belonging to a community. Other issues that need to be looked at include security —.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Sure.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Would the Member accept that living in a town centre can bring opportunities as well? There are libraries in town centres, and numerous groups meet in towns. Yes, I appreciate that there are risks and potential isolation, but there is also much potential for networking and benefit to those who chose to live there.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Member for the intervention. I hope that you, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker, and Members will agree that I had just highlighted a number of positives to living in a town centre, and I will come to some potential solutions to the issues on which I note caution.

There must be fire precautions, separate from those for the shop. There is the probability of high traffic noise and access issues. There needs to be a separate entrance, ideally one in a well-lit and clearly visible place.

There are ways to ensure that the areas of concern do not outweigh the benefits that I highlighted, for example, through the coordination of planning and implementation by ensuring interdepartmental and inter-agency working on the issues that I have highlighted and through area planning and joined-up working between different levels of government to highlight the pitfalls and provide solutions.

With that in mind, together with the fact that potential problems do not outweigh the benefits, I am happy to support the motion.

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

The Green Party supports the amendment to the motion. We do so because we believe that housing is a right, not a luxury; nor is it a commodity to be bought and sold or traded for financial gain. Unfortunately, that is what it has become, leading to inflated prices, inflated land values and inflated profits in the private housing sector.

We are not in the same situation as our neighbours in Dublin or London just yet, but we are heading there, make no mistake about it. For example, as of March 2019, there were just under 40,000 people on our housing waiting lists, yet, in the 2018-19 financial year, we built fewer than 1,000 new social homes while 7,000 homes were built in the private sector. The Assembly cannot stand over a situation where restrictions are placed on our largest social housing provider creating new homes while grant incentives are provided to the private sector. The Department for Communities' review of a previous, similar scheme remarked on:

"the relatively low risk and high reward available to the prospective recipients of grant funding."

It seems that some have not learned lessons from previous mistakes with this type of proposal. The overprovision of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) in areas such as my constituency of South Belfast has decimated some neighbourhoods and communities and has created social and environmental problems that cost statutory agencies millions each year in trying to manage.

HMOs and LOTS serve a purpose but only when used properly and only with proper controls and planning. That is why the amendment provides a much more proportionate and balanced response to the issue. We need more high-quality, affordable and long-term homes. We know that single men between the ages of 26 and 59 make up the biggest proportion of people on the housing waiting list. We know that we need more one- and two-bedroom housing units, which LOTS-type accommodation could help with, but driving more people into the private sector, with its rising rents, is not the answer. The Nevin Economic Research Institute's research on housing in Northern Ireland makes it clear that affordability is a major issue in the private rented sector, because costs are simply too high. Sadly, some of our housing association rents are pushing up the boundary of what we consider affordable.

We knew that we needed to reimagine our towns and city centres long before COVID hit, but it has provided us with another reason and opportunity to build back better. Housing-led regeneration is a way forward. Our towns and city centres should be places where people want to live. There is no quick fix. We cannot just throw public money at private property owners to create some new flats and bedsits and expect regeneration to somehow happen on its own.

Pat Catney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Member for giving way. Sometimes, some of the old buildings are historic buildings, like Victorian buildings. We have lost an awful lot of our built heritage. It is just a case of trying to give another lifeline to the businesses trying to operate in them. I am sure that the Member sees that as a risk as well.

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for his contribution. It is something that I will be —.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Ms Bailey, you have an additional minute.

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

Thank you.

I will address exactly that point in a second.

We need to create liveable, breathable urban spaces with good housing; green spaces; no congestion; access to health centres, schools and parks; and a butcher, baker and candlestick maker all within your living space. We do not need to give away grants to create more private rental accommodation to make any of that happen.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Will the Member give way?

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

Yes, go ahead.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

I share the idealistic vision that you create, but I just wonder how it will be delivered. Government borrowing restrictions limit the public funds available. If there is not a partnership of some sort between housing associations and the private sector, are you not just going to be looking for a vision and not delivering it?

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

I thank the Member for his contribution. I assure you that it is not idealistic; it is experience that I speak from. I speak from experience as a mother who was forced out of private rental due to high rents and who lived in a hostel for many months before being offered social housing. That is where my ideals come from.

It is not enough for landlords to make lots available. Perhaps, we should look a bit more closely at why that might be happening. What public policy could be contributing to that? Landlords are already being incentivised to sit with vacant commercial property by our rating system. Developers are also being incentivised to knock down and rebuild rather than repurpose and reuse under our VAT system. In the context of our climate emergency, the impact that it has on our carbon emissions is unforgivable, never mind what it has meant — this is exactly the point that the Member made — for our built heritage across our Province. We can do things better. We can encourage landlords to use their properties better. We should also use public money better. Let us work on that. Let us put our focus on meeting the needs of our constituents in a sustainable way. Let us use public resource to create public housing at a scale that is actually needed.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I am sorry —.

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

Let us redesign our planning system and make it fit for purpose today, and let us focus on creating a happier and healthier Northern Ireland for all.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

It is undoubtedly the case that city- and town-centre living would go some way towards alleviating local housing crises across the North, particularly in inner-city communities. We must ensure that, when we talk about increased housing across the North, it is, first and foremost, about getting people the homes that they need and, secondly, about doing it in a sustainable and affordable manner. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the intention behind the DUP motion today. It seems to be in line with the recent approach to COVID: the motive is, blatantly and simply, to get businesses in city centres generating profit again. Indeed, the motion comes hot on the heels — you will be well aware of this, Mr Principal Deputy Speaker — of the sign-off on the Tribeca development in Belfast city centre, which was opposed by campaign groups and thousands of submissions because it presented a threat to social housing, open space, arts and culture and built heritage, as we have heard, and included thousands of square feet of office space. Unfortunately, it was pushed ahead by the DUP and Sinn Féin. We can and must do better when planning the future for our town centres to put people's needs first and guarantee sustainability over making a quick buck for landlords or big business owners. How many —?

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member for giving way. While I welcome his initial comments about the need for housing space, particularly in our town centres, does he not note the intention and genuine spirit of the motion, which is to look at the thousands of vacant properties in our town centres and note that, without a scheme in place to support landlords who are already struggling, we will not be able to provide additional space in town centres to allow people to live and make our cities and towns vibrant once again?

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Before I call Mr Carroll, I remind Members that interventions should be brief. Mr Carroll, you have an additional minute.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I remind the Member that there is no great practice of grants being handed out in this Building through various Departments and of them being fair and accessible and of public money being well spent. I remind him of RHI. There have to be concerns raised over the kind of grant scheme that he and his party suggest.

How many high-quality, premium apartments did we see flood the market in Belfast alone when COVID hit and tourists could not travel here? There were enough to prove that such apartments are not always built with the people who live here in mind. To go further, we would like to see the Executive enable the Housing Executive to buy and develop many of those spaces to throw open town and city centres to people stuck on waiting lists. We think that that is the best approach to dealing with the housing crisis in our communities.

We are not in favour of ploughing ahead with the profit-driven development of our city centres, which has seen hoteliers and businesses given primacy over the objective need of our communities too many times. We are not alone: academic research says that we must move towards more sustainable planning. The COVID-19 crisis has exposed more than ever the problematic fragility of the direction taken by the Executive over the past 10 years in the matter. We are for the development of homes in the city centre, but they must be built or developed so that they are affordable and up to environmental standards. Therefore, I cannot support the DUP motion, but I will support the amendment.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

No other Members have indicated that they wish to participate in the debate, so I call the Minister for Communities, Ms Caral Ní Chuilín, to respond to the debate. The Minister will have 15 minutes.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the contributors to the debate and welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion.

First, in relation to addressing the question about the Living over the Shop scheme — the debate brought this out in a much broader sense — I fully recognise the role that a repurposed and attractive space can play in the success of town centres and making high streets desirable places to live. However, my priority is providing accessible, quality, public housing for those in most need, housing in quality neighbourhoods with access to suitable amenities. Repurposing vacant or underused commercial premises as homes can have a role to play. However, the basis for my Department to intervene with a subsidy to the private housing market will always be around the provision of public housing allocated on the basis of objective need, given the scale of the housing stress that was mentioned here today in the debate.

You all have the background notes on the Living over the Shop scheme. The Department funded the scheme for conversion projects from commercial to private residential properties. The scheme was aimed at encouraging the development of homes and empty spaces above high street shops and was targeted primarily at creating private homes for sale or rent. The LOTS scheme was then an attempt to help urban centres by providing housing and reusing buildings. However, the scheme closed to new applicants in 2009, due not only to budgetary constraints but to its absolute failure to deliver on anticipated outcomes. An independent review of the scheme supported that analysis. It was a grant scheme; it did not make any significant difference to housing supply or regeneration; and focus then moved on to other work that held more promise.

The report was clear that there were numerous issues causing the underutilisation of former commercial space in towns and city centres, and some of those issues have been raised today, issues such as planning, building control, health and safety, financing, insurance, rates, the layout of the buildings and disability access.

The provision of a small grant scheme, or any grant scheme, did not significantly overcome these issues and, as a result, the scheme hardly managed to deliver any homes. Moreover, as private and public funding was directed towards the provision of private dwellings, there was no increase in the delivery of public housing.

Personally, I see no evidence that any of this has changed. To be clear, I have no plans to reinstate, under any circumstances, the Living over the Shop scheme. Indeed, the provision of a public subsidy to support the creation of new homes by private developers, potentially at the expense of additional public housing, is something that I will not support.

A Member

Will the Minister give way?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

No.

Given the high level of housing stress here, my primary focus will be on increasing the supply of public housing in future. A grant scheme for developers that does not aim to specifically increase the provision of public housing is not part of my plans. As I said at the start, that does not mean that I am not going to look at options or a range of other measures to help reimagine or regenerate our towns and cities. However, putting public money into vacant shop spaces while there is such a growing need for social housing cannot be reconciled. My Department is therefore committed to finding new and innovative ways of increasing the supply and, indeed, affordability of housing. I welcome the fact that councils are supporting this through their local development plans to increase the provision of housing in their towns and cities.

My Department has undertaken a wide range of work to assist councils in developing and implementing affordable housing policies through the local development plan process, and my officials are keen to continue to collaborate with councils on this very important work. Some of the work includes an advice note on delivering affordable housing, with planning conditions for any new housing development; a new definition of affordable housing; scoping new types of intermediate housing, including new initiatives within the private rented sector, such as below-market intermediate rents; and partnering with Belfast City Council, in part to fund a study to understand the viability of housing development, including affordable housing provision. The Housing Executive has engaged with councils on a strategic and scheme basis to ensure that housing need is addressed locally.

My officials are also working with local authorities on urban regeneration projects and programmes that have a strong housing element, and I would like to highlight some of the work that we are doing. For example, in Belfast, a key policy objective that we share with Belfast City Council is to increase the residential population living in the city centre and around the city core, in line with the local development plan. This will include the provision of 20% social and affordable housing in proposed schemes. One example of this process in action is my Department's input into the strategic site assessments conducted by the council, which identified a number of key sites that it currently owns. However, it is not just Belfast. My Department has taken practical steps to help regenerate urban centres and provide housing right across the North. We are involved in mixed-use regeneration schemes that will deliver affordable and more social homes. These efforts will undoubtedly improve the economic and social fabric of our town centres.

It is clear that there are currently problems faced by town and city centres, and this needs to be addressed as part of the TEO high street task force. There was a clear lesson in the Living over the Shop pilot. There are fundamental issues that went beyond the influence of the scheme. The focus of any future intervention by my Department will always remain on targeting those in most need. I firmly believe that this focus should increase supply to reduce demand. In the meantime, the Department for Communities will continue to work actively to engage with councils and, indeed, other bodies, particularly in rural communities, to work with their local plans.

I will now turn to some of the contributions. Jonathan Buckley moved the motion and spoke of the need to revitalise our town and city centres. Given the economic conditions that we are living in, hardly anyone could dispute that. However, wedging public money for housing to landlords is not going to happen.

Fra McCann moved the amendment, spoke about the previous policy and spend, highlighted the role that councils play in other plans and developments, and, in particular, spoke about the challenge of delivering effective outcomes that was faced in the past. One of those outcomes was inclusion.

Mark, you can check these figures out, but I think that West Belfast has the highest number on the housing waiting list; North Belfast is next; and Foyle is after that. To be frank, those figures are not good. Those constituencies are in the top three. They have persistently been in the top three because there has been systematic inequality in housing for decades. That needs to change. Mark Durkan mentioned the need to look at opportunities, not just to have greater supply but to ensure that as much good-quality housing as possible is delivered without rushing to give out grants. That is quite appropriate.

Roy Beggs spoke next to support the motion and not the amendment. He mentioned planning and conservation concerns and planning policies. While all those issues are correct, it goes back to the point that Pat made. I grew up in Carrick Hill, an area with great Victorian character, but plumbing that was not great, outside toilets and overcrowding, with four generations living under one roof. As twee — not as twee, but as good as our upbringing was, our happy memories — there are good memories — and the fact that it grounded us all, I know that, given the housing figures in some of the areas of highest demand, families are being brought up in homes that are meant for one or two people on their own with no children.

Kellie and I were on the Committee with Fra and Mark. I, honestly, think that there is a nervousness in the Alliance Party about objective need, because I found both your contribution and John's convoluted and confused. While you support the motion and not the amendment, and spoke about NDNA and the need for inclusive space, you went on to talk about concerns about access —.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Minister, I am loathe to interrupt, but you really should not refer to other Members with "you" or "your" in the debate. Try to keep your remarks through the Chair.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Apologies.

I believe that it is generally accepted that there is a housing crisis and that we need to look at ways in which to deal with it. However, I do not agree with some of the —.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

Will the Minister give way?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

No, thanks. I do not agree with some of the ways that the Members suggested.

Sinéad Ennis also mentioned the NDNA commitment on objective need, particularly in relation to some of Sinn Féin's proposals as part of those negotiations; on removing corporation tax and the historic debt in order to allow the Housing Executive to build more homes, despite the fact, as she pointed out, rightly, that it has missed targets each year. While, some years, there is an explanation, the Housing Executive needs to be a bigger champion and better advocate for people who are homeless and on the housing waiting list than it is currently.

I want to thank Clare for talking about her experience, because, sometimes, I think that that is missing. I commend the Member for South Belfast for her dignity in not responding to Mr Beggs's attempt to mansplain. If anyone has to go into a hostel with two small children after they have lost their home in the private rented sector, that is exactly the reason why the amendment needs to be supported, not the motion.

Gerry Carroll mentioned that sustainability and affordability are an issue, as did many other Members, and that is the case. Housing Executive and housing associations' rents need to be better reconciled. As has been mentioned previously, some people refuse housing association homes because they cannot afford the rent. Rent in the private rented sector, even with a public subsidy, is higher than it needs to be. I believe that there is mission creep going on here. It is not a renters' market. Some people who really need social housing not only deserve it but are being held in a situation where they feel as though they are almost locked into private rented accommodation and have nowhere else to go. That is absolutely horrendous. I, too, have been in that situation with small children.

There is a lot to be said, particularly when we talk about city centre living, and I would like to end on this: Carrick Hill, the Market, the Strand and all around York Road, those communities are still there generations later and have been part of the city since well before a lot of those other places in Belfast emerged. I do believe that each of us will have examples of that in our own towns and villages. It is important to try to sustain communities and to sustain families, but we also have to be honest. By and large, the private rented sector has played an important role. I am not saying that it does not have a role to play. However, it is not acceptable that the private rented sector is now being used to deliver a public and statutory duty and obligation. That is not acceptable. Public money should not be put into the private rented sector at the detriment of people who need a social home.

I thank the Members who spoke for their contributions. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Thank you, Minister. As Question Time begins at 2pm, and will be followed by two questions for urgent oral answer, I suggest that the House take its ease. This debate will continue after Question Time and the two questions for urgent oral answer. The next Member to speak will be Mr Cathal Boylan to wind on the amendment.

The House can take its ease while we change the personnel at the Table.

The debate stood suspended.

(Mr Speaker in the Chair)

Oral Answers to Questions — The Executive Office

Pat Catney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Lagan Valley)

1. Mr Catney asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister when the report by the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition will be published. (AQO 622/17-22)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

We are currently considering the final report of the Commission on Flags, Identity, Culture and Tradition. We will then decide on appropriate next steps, including a decision on the publication of the commission's report.

Pat Catney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Lagan Valley)

Minister, I thank you for your answer. At the start of the summer, I was contacted by a young mother with two children under the age of seven. She had moved into a lovely new home in my constituency. Some people in the area made assumptions about her background and put a Union flag and a UVF flag outside her house. In her own words, she said:

"I don't want this to happen, but I fear for my children if I complain. I was told that if I tried to move the flags, there would be other consequences."

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Member come to his question?

Pat Catney (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Lagan Valley)

First Minister, does that sound like the Northern Ireland that you and I want to live in? I know that both you and I want to live in a better Northern Ireland than that.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his question, and I am very sorry that one of his constituents has had difficulties in that area.

The commission had a very extensive stakeholder engagement. It met a number of people face to face. It received a wide range of written consultation responses as well. The deputy First Minister and I received the report on, I think, 17 July. We are currently going through the report with officials, and we very much hope that we will be able to come back to the Committee and the Assembly in the near future with our response to it.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Before I call the next Member to ask a question, I remind Members who wish to ask a supplementary question to remember to rise from their seat.

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

2. Mr O'Toole asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, given the deadline of the end of 2020, when they plan to bring details of the legislative programme relating to Brexit and the implementation of the protocol on Ireland/Northern Ireland to the Assembly. (AQO 623/17-22)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his question. In response to the Speaker about preparing for Assembly business in the autumn, the deputy First Minister and I provided an early indication of the volume of legislation required for the end of the transition period. The legislative requirements include devolved, reserved and excepted matters, which means that legislation will be brought forward both in the Assembly and at Westminster.

The identified requirement is focused mainly on secondary legislation. It is therefore anticipated that most of the pressure will, in the first instance, be on the relevant Committees. Departmental officials are briefing their respective Committees on the volume of EU exit legislation expected to be brought forward.

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

I thank the First Minister for her answer. We are in a very dangerous situation in Northern Ireland. In a few months' time, we will crash out of the EU at the end of the transition period. We may or may not have a deal with the EU.

I ask both First Ministers that they urgently step up together and make a joint, united plea to the UK Government for serious engagement on delivery of the protocol and on protection of all citizens of Northern Ireland and for them to stop messing around with our fragile society and the protections that exist for everyone here.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his supplementary question. Across the Executive, we want to see that our businesses are protected at the end of the transition period; that we have unfettered access for them into the GB market; and, indeed, that the Joint Committee, which is currently tasked with using its best endeavours to deal with a number of issues identified in the protocol, deals with those issues that are in the protocol, particularly issues around state aid and goods at risk of entering the single market, which comes through Northern Ireland.

I am amazed that that issue has not yet been solved, because it is very straightforward. I know that a number of our businesses want to see certainty around that, and I again call on the Joint Committee to find solutions to the issues that the Member has identified.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Can the Minister indicate what Brexit-related areas will require Assembly primary legislation?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Sorry, Mr Speaker. I did not quite catch the question, because there seemed to be interference. Sorry about that.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Sorry. Can the Minister indicate —?

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Use your microphone.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Can the Minister indicate what Brexit-related areas will require Assembly primary legislation?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Yes. Sorry, I did not hear that initially. The most recent 10 September returns indicate that consideration has been given to the potential need for three Assembly Bills and eight Westminster Bills. However, the numbers do remain fluid and may change. It is important that we continue to work with the UK Government on all of these issues.

The three Assembly primary legislation pieces are an education Bill, a health and social care cross-border healthcare Bill and an infrastructure omnibus Bill. Those are the three Bills that are currently identified. I hope that is helpful to the Member.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

Can my Rt Hon friend tell me what her opinion is of the recent assessment that was given by Lord Frost that Monsieur Barnier, and other EU officials, have deliberately threatened the food supply of the people of Northern Ireland? Does the First Minister agree with me that such antics are despicable and reflective of an EU bureaucracy that has overplayed its hand?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As I have already indicated to the Member for South Belfast, the Joint Committee could have dealt with these issues in a quicker fashion. I hear the Member for South Belfast saying that what Lord Frost said yesterday was a lie. I have to say, he will have to take that up with Lord Frost. However, I find it wrong. When the deputy First Minister and I joined the extraordinary Joint Committee last week, I did say that the EU needs to stop using Northern Ireland to get its own way. We are not the plaything of the European Union. It causes great difficulties when people use Northern Ireland in that fashion. I recall when the then Taoiseach, now the Tánaiste, used a photograph of a blown-up border post to make his point to European leaders in October 2018, and that was wrong as well.

We need to focus on getting answers for our consumers, our businesses and the citizens of Northern Ireland. It is quite wrong for the EU to use hyperbole to get its way. We need to see the actual protection of peace in Northern Ireland.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the First Minister for her answers. I note that she very clearly used the words "best endeavours". Will the First Minister discuss with the Executive how to make sure that both the EU and the British Government, through the Joint Committee, make a very clear statement, very soon, about the implications for our food, state aid rules and, above all, the very onerous position the Assembly may be placed in at the beginning of next year under the jurisdiction of the ECJ?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

When I refer to "best endeavours", I am specifically referencing article 6 of the protocol which says very clearly that:

"the Union and the United Kingdom shall use their best endeavours to facilitate the trade between Northern Ireland and other parts of the United Kingdom".

We need to see more "best endeavours" actually being put into action so that we can get a solution to some of the issues that are still outstanding on the protocol. Neither the deputy First Minister nor I — indeed, the entire Executive — will be found wanting in our engagement with the UK Government and the European Union. We both attended the extraordinary Joint Committee meeting last Thursday. The junior Ministers attend ongoing meetings with the Paymaster General about the negotiations. We will continue to engage at the highest level that we can to get across the fact that we need solutions for the people of Northern Ireland, and that is what is important.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

The House of Commons will consider the Internal Market Bill today. Does the First Minister agree that it is entirely inappropriate for any Government to announce its intention to break international law and it is precisely not the way to successfully conclude negotiations?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As I understand the Internal Market Bill, they are notwithstanding clauses and, therefore, the hope is that there will still be a negotiated settlement through the Joint Committee and, in particular, a free trade agreement in totality. We want an agreement that will give clarity for our businesses, our consumers and, indeed, our citizens in Northern Ireland. We want to see that agreement put in place. We recognise that time is very short in relation to all of that. We will not be found wanting in our continued engagement, despite all of the other pressures, because we recognise how important it is to find solutions to these matters.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

3. Ms Dillon asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the appointment of the new Attorney General. (AQO 624/17-22)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for her question. She will be aware that we have indicated our intention to appoint an Attorney General by means of an open competition based on the principles that apply to public appointments. While the post of the Attorney General is not regulated by the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments for Northern Ireland, it is our intention to adhere to the spirit of the commissioner's code of practice relating to public appointments.

We have also decided that it would be timely to review the various aspects of the role of the Attorney General, since the post has now been in existence for over 10 years. The outcome of that review will feed into the appointment process and we will be considering proposals on the review process in the near future.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

Does the Minister agree that given the very significant challenges that we face at the moment, particularly around COVID and Brexit, it is important that the process is completed? I accept what she has said about the process; that is important and it is good that it is being followed, but it is important that we have some time frame for the appointment.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for her question. I am advised by the office that an open competition can take in the region of six months from start to completion. That is why the deputy First Minister and I have appointed the interim Attorney General for a period of one year so that we can have continuity of advice.

This is the first opportunity that I have had to pay tribute to the outgoing Attorney General. Mr Larkin QC has been in place for over 10 years during some very turbulent times and I believe that he discharged his functions in a very good way towards all of the Ministers of the Executive. Of course, he was the Executive's principal legal adviser, which is an onerous task. I wish him well in his future career.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

4. Mr Harvey asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, in relation to COVID-19, what discussions have taken place to seek to address potentially confused messaging across the four nations of the United Kingdom and to offer a more consistent and effective public message. (AQO 625/17-22)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his question. Discussions take place on a regular basis between the four nations of the United Kingdom on a range of matters, including the communication of public health information. Our overall messages are aligned and consistent; those are regular handwashing, social distancing and the wearing of face coverings. The Executive have set out their own road map to recovery and renewal and decisions on the unfolding local context are based on medical and scientific evidence. We have deployed a high-impact public information campaign using television, radio and print and digital platforms to ensure that people in Northern Ireland understand how to stay safe and save lives.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the First Minister for her answer. Has the idea of an agreed joint position on the fight against COVID been discussed in the four-nation meetings as we head into the winter?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his question. Indeed, a proposal for a UK-wide public information campaign entitled 'Hands. Face. Space.' is currently being tested in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. It will be a heavyweight UK-wide campaign. It will be consistent with our messages and it will amplify the call to adhere to the public health advice. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who chairs our quadrilateral meetings, is very keen to have an agreed platform for the UK nations signed off as soon as we can.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

In light of the recent changes to the restrictions, can the Minister provide us with the evidence that says that the virus can spread in homes where there are more than six people but not in workplaces or schools where there are more than six people?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Yes, absolutely. As the Member knows, the Executive acts on the advice that is given by the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Scientific Adviser. Based on our very good track, trace and protect system, we have been able to identify that most of the spread of COVID in the community is caused by household activities, whether that is people going around for coffee or mixing socially in people's homes or, indeed, by the dreaded house parties which, unfortunately, are still taking place.

The reason why we have acted in the way that we have, which is in this graduated way, is because the evidence is pointing to the source of the spread of COVID being in our home. I wish that it was otherwise, but that is, unfortunately, where the evidence is pointing.

2.15 pm

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Whatever confusion might arise in the four nations, I suspect that the First Minister will agree that the greater challenge lies at home in the undermining of the Executive's message by the episode of the deputy First Minister's attendance at the Storey funeral. Has the deputy First Minister apologised to her — she has not apologised to the public — for attending the funeral and for breaching your own joint regulations?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I think that the deputy First Minister has acknowledged that the events at the end of June fundamentally undermined the messaging from the Northern Ireland Executive and that there was a confused message coming out. It is right that we have had an acknowledgement of that undermining of public health messaging, and now investigations will continue, as you know, through police and Assembly investigations.

Let me say this to the Assembly and, indeed, to anyone else who is listening: we are at a tipping point with COVID-19. I know that there are those who think that we are scaremongering about it. I just want to address that. We are not. We are in constant contact with our Chief Medical Officer, and again today, I am advised that for the postcodes that we have particular concern about, that concern is very much still there. I do not want to see that spreading across Northern Ireland. We have to act to stop it spreading across Northern Ireland and stop people who are in those postcode areas from spreading COVID-19. Whilst hospitalisation numbers are not yet growing, we all know that there is a lag in hospitalisations and ICU admissions. I do not want to be standing here in four weeks' time talking about the huge rise in hospital numbers. I want us to act on it now so that we can get on top of COVID-19.

When you look at what the BMA is saying today about the fact that over 80% of doctors fear a second wave, you see that it would be very remiss of us if we did not act and take action.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

That is a no, then.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Minister, given, as you know, that Ireland is a single epidemiological unit and that the virus does not recognise any borders, do you agree that there needs to be a consistency in message in the public health approach across this island as well as across the islands?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for her question. As she knows, we have said in our own plan for dealing with COVID-19 that it is important that we continue with our four-nations approach, particularly in how we fight the virus through the joint biosecurity centre, where the Health Minister receives a lot of his high-level engagement on other jurisdictions across the world.

Of course it is important that we continue to work with our colleagues in the Republic of Ireland so that we can understand what is happening in that jurisdiction and that, if we have to take a different route in any one case, we understand why we are doing that and can then talk to each other about the messaging. That conversation with colleagues in the Republic of Ireland, as well, of course, with those in the other three nations, will continue, and, indeed, we will have another conversation this afternoon on these issues with colleagues from Scotland and Wales and with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the First Minister for her answer to Mr Allister's supplementary question. On the topic of confused messaging, why would the increasingly erratic MP for East Antrim have formed the opinion that the First Minister was not on the same page as the Health Minister about local restrictions in Ballymena and Belfast?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I think that it is important to acknowledge that those of us who have the privilege of sitting on the Executive have the onerous task of taking decisions that impact right across Northern Ireland. That is a big, onerous task to have on our shoulders, and I totally understand that other colleagues and, indeed, those from other parties may want to challenge us on the decisions that we take. I stand full square with the decisions that we took in the Executive last Thursday. They were the right decisions, and they were the appropriate, proportionate decisions to take at that time. There are concerns about those decisions, but I ask the community in Northern Ireland to work with us to defeat coronavirus and minimise the number of deaths from this dreadful pandemic, because it is so important that we continue to give leadership in that way.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

5. Ms Bunting asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister what progress has been made with the Catholic Church in relation to its contribution towards payments to victims of historical institutional abuse. (AQO 626/17-22)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for her question. Officials have held meetings with representatives of the main institutions that the Hart report found to be responsible for systematic failings. These have focused on providing relevant information to the redress board and on the moral obligation to contribute to the redress costs. Now that the redress scheme has launched, we are keen to begin negotiations, with a view to ensuring a fair and proportionate outcome. The next steps will include a round-table meeting with all the institutions to set out the principles for negotiations. Ministers are considering how best they can give visible leadership to this very important process.

Joanne Bunting (DUP, Belfast East)

I thank the First Minister for her answer. Given that the Roman Catholic Church is as wealthy as some countries, have the bishops given any indication of a notional figure that they will contribute and a timescale for payment? Also, are Ministers willing to be directly involved in ensuring that the Church and other smaller orders make appropriate reparation?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

In answer to the latter question, we will be involved in that discussion and negotiation. The cost estimates for financial redress range from about £149 million at the lower end, to £402 million as a central estimate, and then up to £668 million at the upper end. Contributions from institutions could help to defray some of those costs. A meeting with the two archbishops, Roman Catholic and Church of Ireland, has been discussed, and we will shortly write to both and to the institutions. We need to understand the fact that the institutions are separate, which sometimes makes it complicated to gain contributions and have those conversations.

We will absolutely continue with the negotiations and have those conversations because there is a moral imperative in relation to this issue to put an end to this dark stain on our history.

Fra McCann (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Will the Minister advise whether any progress has been made on the apology, as recommended by Judge Hart?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for his question. As the Member knows, an interim advocate has been in place. He was working with the groups in relation to the apology. It is fair to say that there has been a bit of a breakdown between some survivors and the interim advocate. Therefore, the Executive Office was separately engaging with one of those groups in a parallel process. We are waiting to hear from the interim advocate. We are also very close to the end of a process for the appointment of a full-time commissioner, and we look forward to making an announcement in relation to that issue. It is something that the House has taken a keen interest in and something that we want to pursue. When the commissioner is appointed, he or she will certainly take up the issues of an apology and the memorial, as well as dealing with victims' needs and the redress scheme.

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

I thank the First Minister for her answers so far. We welcome all and any progress in victims receiving payments. The First Minister said previously that the Executive are in conversations with other aspects of the Christian belief. Has any money been secured in addition to that from the Catholic Church, or is that still at the conversational stage?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

When the Government set up the process, we said that we felt strongly that we had a responsibility to give redress to people who had been through such a horrific time as a result of being in an institution. We fundamentally believe that there is a moral imperative on some of those institutions to come forward and talk to us about reparations for what happened in them. Therefore, we will pursue those conversations, because we believe they are something that the House, and the public in general, want us to pursue.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I call Claire Bailey.

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Question 8.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Sorry, First Minister. Ms Bailey, I thought that you were asking a supplementary; you are ahead of yourself. I will move on to Michelle McIlveen.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

6. Miss McIlveen asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister to outline the steps required to deliver the Troubles-related-incident victims' payment scheme. (AQO 627/17-22)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Thanks to the Member for her question. The Executive Office has designated the Department of Justice to exercise the administrative functions of the victims' payment board and has agreed to provide grants to the Department to establish the scheme's administrative arrangements. That will allow the recruitment of board members, IT developments and the other steps that are needed to establish the board to proceed. A substantial programme of work is under way with the Department. However, more work remains to be implemented before a scheme of this complexity and magnitude can become operational. The deputy First Minister and I will be meeting the Justice Minister shortly to discuss the next steps.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I thank the First Minister for her response. Further to that, are all Ministers in the Executive now committed to ensuring that victims who have already been waiting far too long receive their payments at the earliest possible point, regardless of any dissatisfaction that they might have about issues such as eligibility or, indeed, any other matters?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Member for her supplementary question. I very much hope that it is the case that all Ministers are on board with this. We have had quite a divisive court case. It is important that we now move on and get the scheme implemented as quickly as possible. As I have indicated, a substantial programme of work has to be carried out by the Department of Justice. We will support the Department of Justice where we can in that.

For example, to give an indication of what needs to be achieved, we need the appointment of the president of the victims' board by the Lord Chief Justice and then the appointment and induction of board members by the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Committee. We need to secure additional funding from Westminster in recognition of the fact that this is a scheme that operates not just in Northern Ireland but across the United Kingdom. We need the finalisation of an IT system, the appointment of an assessment-services provider, the development of an assessment process and then agreement by the victims' payment board of its governance and decision-making policy, so there is a big job of work to be done. We are up for that job of work, but we need to do it in quick time so that we can get funding out to the many victims who need to have their needs acknowledged, first of all, by the payment. Hopefully, the payment will ease some of the suffering that they are currently enduring.

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

Does the First Minister agree with me that it is important that she and the deputy First Minister offer an apology to those victims whom they forced to go to court to secure their right to that pension?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have to say to the Member that it is a matter of deep regret that not just one member but, indeed, many members of the victims and survivors community felt that they had to go to court to have this matter dealt with. I hope now that we can move on in fast time and that we can support the Department of Justice in dealing with the issue as quickly as possible. Of course, we need to deal with the funding issue, and we will deal with that. It is important that we have all the processes in place as well. As I have indicated, quite a number of processes need to be dealt with. I very much want to see this dealt with as quickly as possible. It would, of course, have been wish that it was dealt with in the appropriate manner.

Órlaithí Flynn (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Does the Minister agree that there is a compelling responsibility on the Westminster Government to help fund the scheme?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I think that that is right, because, if you look at the Treasury's guidance on funding, you see that it clearly says that the funding follows the person who has made the policy decision, and the policy decision was made at Westminster by the then Secretary of State. It is important that the deputy First Minister and I continue to work with the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Finance so that we can get the appropriate funding in place. We have to do that; it is not a case of, "We would like to do that". We have to do it to make sure that the funding is in place.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

That ends the period for listed questions. We will now move on to 15 minutes of topical questions. Before I call Ms Martina Anderson, I notify Members that questions 2 and 4 have been withdrawn.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

T1. Ms Anderson asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether the First Minister agrees with Nicola Sturgeon’s assessment that the Internal Market Bill is a full-frontal attack on the Assembly. (AQT 341/17-22)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As the Member knows, there are differing views on Brexit in the Executive. Each of us took a different view at the time of the referendum. The Internal Market Bill tries to deal with non-discrimination and mutual recognition for goods going from the Northern Ireland market into the GB market. As the Member will know, GB is our largest market, so it is important that we have unfettered access to it. That is what I hope this Bill will achieve.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Minister, as you know, Part 6 of the Bill empowers British Ministers to override the budgetary role of the Assembly and to make spending decisions without consulting you, other Ministers or the Finance Minister. Are you saying, Minister, that that unacceptable level of interference, and the undermining of the Good Friday Agreement, is justified?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I think that what I was saying to the Member was that it is important that the UK market succeeds in the future, because, as I have just indicated, it is our most important market. All the other markets added together are not as big as the GB market. Therefore it is important that we have a free flow, and the Internal Market Bill goes some way to dealing with that. It does not deal with all the issues, but it deals with some of them. It deals with issues surrounding unfettered access and export declarations. I am sure that no one in the House would want to see a fettering of access to the GB market for all our businesses and consumers.

One of the things that concerns me is that the Joint Committee has still not come to a determination on goods at risk, and that remains a huge issue for us. As I have already indicated, that should not be used as a bargaining chip. Instead, it should be dealt with as quickly as possible.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

T3. Mr Dickson asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether the First Minister agrees with the Lord Chief Justice, Sir Declan Morgan’s, comments that breaking international law could undermine trust in the Government and the administration of justice. (AQT 343/17-22)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I think that is important that all of us look to the law on these issues and that we look again at the protocol, which, of course, my party argued against and voted against, as we did not believe that it was good for Northern Ireland. We still do not believe that it is good for Northern Ireland. The Internal Market Bill deals with some of the issues in the protocol.

It is important to look at the protocol, which says, in its preamble:

"that the application of this Protocol should impact as little as possible on the everyday life of communities in both Ireland and Northern Ireland ... Having regard to the importance of maintaining the integral place of Northern Ireland in the United Kingdom’s internal market".

That is what I want to see happening. I do not like all of the protocol. In fact, I vehemently do not like it. What we have to do now, however, is clarify those issues that should be dealt with in the Joint Committee but which, thus far, have not been dealt with. Again, I make the plea that they be dealt with so that we can move on.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

I thank the First Minister for her answers so far. Minister, would you not agree with me that any change to an international agreement undermines trust and confidence in the nation that entered into such an agreement and that it has the potential to make the United Kingdom look like a rogue state in the international community?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I am sure that the United Kingdom Government will take all the legal advice available to them on all those issues. However, I say again to the Member that the EU and the UK have a job of work to do. Article 1 of the protocol states very clearly that:

"This Protocol respects the ... territorial integrity of the United Kingdom."

I have yet to see much evidence of that, Mr Speaker. We need to see evidence of that, for myself, as a constitutional unionist, of course, but also for our businesses, our consumers, and our citizens, as they all need clarity. We should have had that clarity by now. Unfortunately, however, negotiations are still ongoing.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

T5. Mr Clarke asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister what key objectives and outcomes the First Minister would like to see from the ongoing Brexit negotiations. (AQT 345/17-22)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

My top line is that I would like to see a tariff-free EU/UK free-trade agreement. As I understand it, what has been put forward by Lord Frost, the UK negotiator, is in line with trade agreements made by the European Union with other nations. He cannot understand why the EU is putting up such a defence to some of the issues. I understand, from the chief negotiator, that the key issues outstanding at the moment are around state aid, fisheries and, of course, the protocol operation which is dealt with in the Joint Committee. There is much to do and I hope that we can achieve it so that we can have free trade between ourselves and the European Union, but, importantly, that we continue to have unfettered access to our main market.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the First Minister for her answer. Further to previous questions, do you believe that all the parties recognise the potential impact to the Northern Ireland economy if there is an unsatisfactory conclusion to the talks?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Sometimes, when I listen to the EU negotiators and they talk about peace in Northern Ireland, it is apparently only if we have free access North/South. There is very little conversation about access east-west and, of course, we need that in a more fundamental way. I understand why North/South was such a big issue and I recognise that, but there were other ways to deal with that. Those other ways were pooh-poohed and not listened to and, unfortunately, we now find ourselves in this situation. There needs to be an acknowledgement that east-west and the integrity of the United Kingdom needs to be protected as much as North/South trade.

Emma Rogan (Sinn Féin, South Down)

T6. Ms Rogan asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the Executive’s working group on mental well-being, resilience and suicide prevention. (AQT 346/17-22)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

This is indeed a very important issue that we resolved to deal with at one of our very first Executive meetings. The Minister of Health, if I am correct in quoting him, said that it was one of the most apolitical meetings that he had ever seen because everybody just wanted to try to find solutions which, at the time, was pre-COVID. Now, we are having to deal with COVID as well as all the other pressures facing people right across Northern Ireland. We have had a number of meetings of the working group. It is something that we are all very much committed to working through. After that, of course, we have to find the funding to deal with many of the issues that will be identified.

Emma Rogan (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Will the Minister reaffirm her commitment to tackling the issue of poor mental health and suicide in the areas of greatest social need?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

One of the things that we are doing is having some scoping work carried out so that we can try to identify where the need is and whether different interventions are needed in different areas. That is important to acknowledge.

I should have also said that one of our NDNA commitments was to appoint a mental health champion and I am very pleased that Professor Siobhan O’Neill has taken up that role. She is already providing leadership in this area and we are very pleased to see that.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

T7. Mr O'Dowd asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, in relation to coronavirus, whether a date has been set for a meeting of the British-Irish Council to discuss common messaging, common themes and a common travel policy within the common travel area. (AQT 347/17-22)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As you know, the deputy First Minister and I had requested a British-Irish Council (BIC) meeting. Unfortunately, we do not have a date as yet. I understand that the standing date for a British-Irish Council meeting is coming up very soon. If we do not get the free-standing meeting before that meeting, you can bet your bottom dollar that we will definitely bring up this issue at the BIC.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

It is important that the institutions of the Good Friday Agreement are used in their totality — they can come into their own with regard to North/South and east-west relationships. I welcome the Minister pushing for that date. Does she agree that it is vitally important that we have a common messaging and understanding of the issues facing us as a result of COVID-19 across these islands?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Absolutely. It is important that we understand where every jurisdiction is on the battle against COVID. We raised this issue with the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster — just last week, the deputy First Minister raised this issue again, and he said that he was in favour of holding a British-Irish Council meeting to discuss these matters. We hope that that will happen in the near future so that we can discuss the totality of issues that we want to discuss.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

T8. Mr Butler asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister whether there is a time frame for the establishment of the Office of Identity and Cultural Expression and the appointment of Irish language and Ulster-Scots commissioners. (AQT 348/17-22)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

As the Member knows, we entered government again back on 11 January with a whole raft of issues under New Decade, New Approach. Unfortunately, with the interruption which has been caused by COVID, we have not been able to proceed in as fast a manner as we would have liked. Having said that, we have been able to proceed with a number of NDNA commitments. We will certainly look to proceed in 2020-21 with those that we have still not been able to proceed.

As regards what we have achieved, the Northern Ireland Office has appointed a Veterans Commissioner. We have established an expert panel on tackling educational underachievement, and work is under way there. Just today, we have had the Flags Regulations laid in the Assembly. We have the interim mental health champion, who I have just referred to, appointed and in place. We have also had confirmation that contaminated blood victims in Northern Ireland will have increased payments in line with Great Britain. Those are just some examples of the things in NDNA that we have been able to proceed with. Of course, there is much more that we need to do as well.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the First Minister for her answer. Some good work has indeed already happened out of NDNA. Is the First Minister confident that nothing has happened during the COVID pandemic to shake the relationship within the Executive and affect delivery on all the NDNA promises?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

We have a very clear understanding, right across the five parties in the Executive, that we came back into this place on the basis of the NDNA agreement. Do not forget that there are things in NDNA that we need to discuss around prioritisation and funding. Those are not the matters that he has discussed; there are other issues that are just mentioned as "possible" or "could". However, there are things that we have all committed to and, therefore, we need to proceed.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

T9. Dr Aiken asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister, albeit that he directed his question solely to the deputy First Minister, whether the remarks today by the MP for East Antrim have undermined the Northern Ireland Executive’s common message on COVID-19. (AQT 349/17-22)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I think that he meant the First Minister, not the deputy First Minister.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

The Executive Office.

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

[Laughter.]

Ah, Steve, Steve. It is good to have a bit of fun in the Assembly. What is important is that the Executive continue to give a very clear message on COVID and the fact that we are in a dangerous position. I think that I have underlined that through what I have said today. Others will challenge and maybe even criticise at times but, when we are in the Executive Office, we have to show leadership in the functions and advice that are given to us. That is what I — I — will continue to do.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Before I call Mr Aiken for a supplementary, I thank and commend the First Minister for her handling of that intervention.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the First Minister for handling the intervention as well but my supplementary is this: bearing in mind the remarks of the East Antrim MP, would she care to comment on the remarks of her deputy First Minister in not giving an apology to the people of Northern Ireland for the events of 30 June, which considerably undermined the health message for everybody who is trying to deal with COVID?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I seem to be answering questions for a whole range of people today. I am sure that the deputy First Minister will want to address the issues that the Member has raised. I have already answered Mr Allister in relation to that. It was important to reflect on what was said and done back at the end of June. We are now very much focused on delivering very strong messaging on COVID-19. It is important that we continue to do that.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

T10. Mr Easton asked the First Minister and deputy First Minister for an update on the implementation of the Ulster-Scots element of New Decade, New Approach. (AQT 350/17-22)

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I have indicated elements in New Decade, New Approach that we have not yet been able to implement. That does not mean that work by officials has not been ongoing on those. There have been a number of meetings in relation to the Office of Identity, the Irish Language commissioner, the Ulster-British commissioner. It is important that we continue along the road and get moving on all of our NDNA commitments. It is important that we deliver on the reason why we came back into the Assembly.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her answer. What are your hopes for the new Veterans Commissioner?

Arlene Foster (DUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I very much welcome the appointment of the Veterans Commissioner by the Northern Ireland Office. I think that all of us in the House know Danny well and know that he will be very committed to working on behalf of veterans across Northern Ireland. He has a big job of work — we all acknowledge that — because there are some difficulties for veterans in accessing what they need. I very much look forward to meeting him in the near future so that we can discuss what he has identified as the needs of that community.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

The time is up. I ask Members to take their ease for a moment while we switch seats.

Oral Answers to Questions — Economy

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Question 1 from Daniel McCrossan has been withdrawn.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

2. Mr Blair asked the Minister for the Economy what action she is taking to ensure that universities have the capacity to honour pre-existing offers, now that A-level students have received their final results. (AQO 637/17-22)

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Member — I lost you there — for his question, which is, indeed, one that is very important and close to my heart. I have argued many times that young people should not be the casualty of economic downturn and that providing them with a place at university is of the utmost importance.

We have a responsibility to our young people. As I argued in August, if additional places and the associated funding are required in the higher education sector to honour pre-existing offers, it is incumbent on us, as an Executive, to ensure that they are provided. I have secured agreement from the Executive to do so, with £3·2 million being allocated for additional places. That is a significant investment in young people's lives.

Anticipating some of the difficulties that would happen this year, my Department had already looked at the potential impact of COVID for the year 2020-21 in creating additional demand for local places. Through the June monitoring round, an additional allocation of £1·5 million was secured, which would deliver an increase of 5% in funded places over three years. At the end of three years, the recurring commitment to maintain that 5% uplift will be £7·1 million. That will see an additional 1,232 places available in the local higher education sector, 410 of which are available for this academic year.

We are still working with the universities to complete the process. Ulster University has already stated that it will not require further additional places. While Queen's is not yet in a position to formally confirm its additional numbers, current indications are that they are not as substantial as previously indicated.

As a final point, I note the wealth of higher education opportunities available at our further education colleges, where courses offer outstanding education and opportunity for young people.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for the answer and the information given. Further to that reply, has the Minister identified any support that can be given to further education colleges whose numbers and courses may be affected due to the increase in university places, where that is the case?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

I understand exactly the question and the problem identified by the Member. A few days ago, I was at the Northern Regional College's Newtownabbey campus, looking at how young people are finishing their vocational courses and getting on with their career paths, and I was really impressed by the standard of teaching and the interaction with those young people. There is no doubt that the additional places that will be created for universities and, on the other side of the coin, the additional places that will be created in sixth-form colleges as the result of GCSE grade uplifts will pose a challenge to our further education sector. I will work with the sector to deal with that. We are still a couple of weeks away from knowing the full extent of that challenge, but I will be happy to report to the House when we have the full figures. I am immensely proud of our further education sector and look forward to working with it to ensure that no child is left behind.

Caoimhe Archibald (Sinn Féin, East Londonderry)

This will be a difficult and uncertain year for many students, and part-time jobs will be hard to come by. At the end of the last academic year, the Minister and the Executive allocated additional funding to the student hardship fund. Will the Minister consider doing so again this year to support students facing financial difficulties?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

As the Member is aware, I took some fairly extensive steps to ensure that students were supported in their route through university, particularly because many young students will not have the opportunity to have additional part-time work etc. That is why we have an additional £5·6 million in the system to deal with student hardship. Of course, we will look at that throughout the year and monitor it to ensure that young people are able to stay on at our colleges and universities, because some of the money also went in that direction, and to ensure that they find career pathways and profitable, genuine employment.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

Last week, the Health Minister announced that Queen's University was making available 80 extra medical school places. Will the Minister tell the House if that meets entirely the demand from those disappointed until their grades were upgraded, or is there any knock-on effect on next year, which would be most unfortunate for that upcoming cohort?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

Medical places are a matter for the Department of Health, which has the policy remit on that and sets the numbers that are applicable for each course. I advise the Member to speak to the Health Minister and get an indication from him of how those numbers are progressing. In general, for courses in very high demand such as medicine, nursing and midwifery, there will potentially be a difficulty. I understand that the Health Minister has made a bid to the Finance Minister to satisfy those place numbers, and I am sure that he will update the Member on the outcome of that bid.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

As the Minister with responsibility for further and higher education, will she explain why it has taken years, an extremely detailed business case and unprecedented lobbying to get the medical school at Magee eventually approved, yet the extra medical places at Queen's in Belfast can be agreed without such a business case and apparently at the drop of a hat?

Diane Dodds (DUP, Upper Bann)

The Member will know that we are in extraordinary and unprecedented times. I apologise if those words are somewhat overworked in the current context, but we are in those extraordinary times. This year, young people did not have the opportunity to sit their exams and faced a period of great uncertainty. I am glad that my colleague moved to take away that uncertainty, that the grades issue was sorted out and that many of those young people will find placements in medical school in Northern Ireland. I look forward to those young people completing their courses and contributing to society here. The Member will also be aware that we have been supportive of the graduate-entry medical school at Magee. That work is ongoing and will be ongoing. I understand that we will be on course for an intake of students in September 2021.

Catherine Kelly (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

3. Ms C Kelly asked the Minister for the Economy what steps she will take to support those businesses excluded from COVID-19 support since the start of the pandemic. (AQO 638/17-22)