Northern Ireland Assembly, 17 November 2020

538 contributions from 63 members. The official report.

Ministerial Statements

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

I have received notice from the Minister for Communities that she wishes to make a statement. Before I call the Minister, I remind Members that, in light of the social distancing being observed by parties, the Speaker's ruling that Members must be in the Chamber to hear a statement if they wish to ask a question has, of course, been relaxed. Members do still have to make sure that their name is on the speaking list if they wish to be called. They can do that by rising in their place, as well as by notifying the Business Office or the Speaker's Table directly. I ask Members to be concise in asking their questions. Thank you very much.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

Go raibh maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Thank you, Mr Speaker. I want to update the House today on some of the measures that my party colleague Deirdre Hargey instigated as Minister for Communities to ensure that the Department for Communities could support people who are affected by COVID-19.

As Members will be aware, as part of the response to the current pandemic, my Department introduced a number of emergency changes to the discretionary support scheme. Those measures included increasing the maximum income that a person can receive before becoming ineligible for discretionary support. This means that anybody with an income of up to £20,405, whether they are in work or receiving benefits, may be eligible for a payment.

We introduced a new discretionary support self-isolation grant for people who have been diagnosed with COVID-19 or are advised to self-isolate in accordance with official guidance. With the introduction of that new grant scheme on 25 March 2020, we ensured that people in the North who are on a low income were amongst the first to be able to access specific financial support. There simply has been no comparable support available to most people in Britain.

I am pleased to note that the rapid response of the Assembly in approving the necessary changes to the discretionary support legislation, alongside the effort of my Department in implementing the changes, has had a very real and direct impact on so many people. That is clearly evident by the extent of the support already made available. The latest available information shows that, between 25 March and 31 October 2020, my Department awarded 14,800 self-isolation grants with a total value of £2·1 million. That is money going directly to people who have found themselves in a crisis situation during the pandemic. However, it is clear that we all continue to face unprecedented challenges as the effects of the pandemic show little signs of abating. Therefore, it is essential that we continue to monitor the support that we can provide to ensure that we help the people who need it most.

I have decided that it is appropriate to introduce some enhancements to the scheme. Those changes do not require new legislation, and I have, therefore, instructed my officials to implement the revised policy immediately. The changes that I have made are designed to enhance the level of financial support that is available through the self-isolation grant. It is hoped that that will be of particular benefit to people who are temporarily unable to work.

In practical terms, my Department will now use higher daily rates of benefit when calculating the amount of an award. Decision makers will also be expected to take into account the impact of the financial shock of self-isolation when calculating the number of days for which to make an award. That is appropriate as a sudden and temporary reduction in normal income levels will mean that a person is at greater risk of experiencing hardship. Therefore, an award of living expenses to cover the whole period of self-isolation should always be considered.

I believe firmly that the discretionary support self-isolation grant offers an enhanced overall package when compared to other areas. For example, the Irish Government have provided support for people who are required to self-isolate that is based on a fixed weekly payment and treated as taxable income. In England, Scotland and Wales, the test-and-trace payment offers fixed amounts of £500 for 14 days, regardless of family circumstances, and the payment is available only to those who have been told to self-isolate by the NHS Test and Trace service. They must prove that they are unable to work and have lost income as a result. The payment is also taxable.

The self-isolation payments that are available here are targeted at those who are in need and are always assessed based on their personal circumstances. That means that, rather than making a fixed payment that does not take account of the size of a family, we will always take into account all dependent children and include them in an award. For example, under the new rules, a couple with three children can receive £683 of discretionary support to cover a period of 14 days. That payment is not taxable and further awards can be made if the family continues to find themselves in a crisis situation. Those payments will also not affect any future applications to the discretionary support scheme. The self-isolation payments can be made if a person is self-isolating because they or someone else in their household is displaying symptoms. Entitlement is not restricted to those who have been contacted and told to self-isolate.

I stress again that if people continue to find themselves in a crisis situation after receiving a self-isolation grant, they can apply for further support. There is no limit to the number of grants that can be awarded. I also believe strongly that the enhancements that have been introduced to the scheme are another important step in strengthening an already comprehensive package of support.

To conclude, the discretionary support self-isolation grant is a very important and accessible means of providing financial support to those who are affected by COVID when they need it most. We know that COVID-19 has widened the gap in our communities and impacted people differently, and it has had a disastrous impact on the people and families who were already struggling. People should be supported to isolate if they need to without fear of going under or being further penalised financially. That is why I have improved the level and duration of financial support that is available to those who are eligible to apply for it. I will continue to keep that under review, and I would welcome Members' feedback as we need to make sure that we keep providing support where and when it is needed.

Paula Bradley (DUP, Belfast North)

I promise that I will be a lot briefer this time than I was the last time, when I asked four questions. I thank the Minister for a very welcome statement and her good manners in calling me last night and informing me of what was in the statement.

The Minister will know that statistics show that 80% of those in part-time employment are female, with some having more than one job and many working in the hospitality sector.

They are already facing real hardship coming up to Christmas, and beyond, owing to the situation with the hospitality sector, without then receiving a notification that they have to self-isolate. This is therefore very welcome, and I am sure that it will help many families.

I want to touch on the issue of fraud. We know that people are missing appointments at our test centres and receiving positive test results from that. Are there any safeguards in here when it comes to fraud? We really want to distinguish between those in need, which is what this is for, and those for whom it is sheer greed.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Chair for her question. She will know that there have been problems with the test-and-trace app. I have to say, however, that the Department is working with people on the basis of need and what they ask for as part of their application process. If, like with any other benefit, it is later found that there were fraudulent claims, we will have to deal with those, but, up until now, most people who have contacted the Department have been genuine cases. As you said in the preamble to your question, a lot of those people are working two jobs — at least — and if they have to self-isolate, this is a lifeline for them. I therefore imagine that most of the claims, if not them all, are completely genuine, and that is the approach that we will be taking.

Sinéad Ennis (Sinn Féin, South Down)

I thank the Minister for her statement and for her continued good work to ensure that the people who need our support at this time are getting it. The support available here far outweighs what is available in other jurisdictions.

I ask the Minister what her Department is doing to raise awareness of the enhanced support available. We want to make sure that there is maximum uptake of the grant.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The first step is to remind people that this help is out there today, because it is quite clear that, although many people — almost 15,000 — have applied for discretionary support, there are many others who are completely unaware of it or who think that it is a loan rather than a grant. We are all hearing that in our constituency offices. From today therefore, having made the statement, I will also ensure that our media outlets, our advice and welfare networks and, indeed, our constituency offices all have this statement, because they, particularly our constituency offices, are usually the first point of contact for many people. When people contact us, particularly about something like this, they are in distress, so we need to minimise that for people who need our support.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for her statement and very much welcome her decision to increase the amount of support that some people in desperate need can get. What we want to see, however, is an increase in the number of people who can get that support. The prohibitively low income threshold of £20,400 a household means that many working families and individuals remain ineligible for financial assistance. Their bills do not stop as a result of having to self-isolate, and many are left with the extremely difficult decision of either to follow the government guidance or to work to feed their family. Will the Minister consider raising the threshold?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his question. He will be aware that Deirdre Hargey increased the threshold, and I am going to look at it again. You are right in the sense that we need to have more people applying for the grant, because they need it, but we also need to make sure that it is going to be supportive: that it will be a help rather than a hindrance. I will be talking to officials again this afternoon, and one of the questions that I will be asking them is whether we can do it without impacting on parity. You will know this as a member of the Committee, but, even though this Assembly accepted legislation brought forward to increase the threshold, I am looking to see what I can do within my vires to make it easier for those people who need it most, particularly going into the winter months and particularly if they are at home, where they are eating more and heating more. We need to make it easy for people, not only to get access to the grant but to ensure that they qualify for it.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

I echo the comments of colleagues around the Chamber in welcoming this much-required enhancement. I thank you for bringing it forward.

Minister, my constituency office team and I have supported many constituents to avail themselves of this grant. As you have highlighted, it is a lifeline for many. With that in mind, can you advise on the average time taken to process the claims and on any steps that you have taken within the discretionary support system to ensure that claims are processed efficiently?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I am told by officials that applications are being processed as quickly as possible. However, in my constituency office and on social media, I have received reports to say that that is not the case across the board. My commitment to all of you is that I will review this on an almost weekly basis. I need to ensure that those who need access to these payments get them, and get them in a timely fashion when they need it most. I urge Members to please let me know if they hear any reports to the contrary.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Any enhancements to payments that can be made to people who are vulnerable, at this time, are very welcome, so thank you very much. Your statement indicates that your front-line staff are the decision makers. Ms Ennis asked about promotion and the knowledge that people have. How much training will your decision makers have? Do you have enough money for this and have you enough money set aside pay out because, hopefully, people will take it up?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for her question. For each change that is made regarding this or any other support, the decision makers will have it again and again and again, because we need to ensure that consistent information is going out. Yes, there is enough money in the budget, for now. The important thing is that, between now and the new year, we need to try to give people support to self-isolate. As the Chair of the Committee said, there are people who are making the decision to not self-isolate because they cannot afford to. We know that the rate of people who have to self-isolate, or who are impacted by COVID, has not abated in the way that we would have hoped. We need to try to support people to stay at home and it is our obligation to do that.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her statement. It is a good news story, so well done. Can I reaffirm with the Minister that anybody who has to self-isolate three or four times will still be able to apply for this? Will it also affect those on tax credits?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for his sentiments. As I said in the statement, people can apply for this when they need it. Unfortunately, due to the length of the pandemic, some people have had to isolate at least once; others a lot more than that. It is a non-taxable grant. Therefore, it should not impact on tax credits. We need to make sure that what we give on one hand is seen in the other. That is not the case across other jurisdictions and we do not want that to happen. Many people who are on tax credits are already on a low income. We need to ensure that, after their application and when this support is given to them, they know exactly what they are getting and exactly what they have.

Órlaithí Flynn (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Mr Allen has already touched on this. Does the Minister foresee that today's announcement will lead to an increase in claims and possible delays in the processing of further cases?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I really hope that there is an increase in people making applications, because, while almost 15,000 have done so up until now, we know that there are many others who are out of work, self-isolating, impacted and affected by COVID. I hope that there are no further delays. As I said to other Members, if you or anybody else has concerns or are hearing reports that there are undue delays, then get in contact with us. That is not what we want, it is not what I or the officials want — they are processing the applications as quickly as they can to get money into people's bank accounts and pockets as quickly as they need them.

Pam Cameron (DUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her statement. The discretionary support self-isolation grant is a lifeline for many people who are on low incomes and who are required to self-isolate. I welcome the news that the daily allowance payable has been increased. Does the Minister agree that these grants are crucial for encouraging and enabling individuals to complete their period of self-isolation? Is her Department working with the Department of Health or the Public Health Agency (PHA) to take the opportunity to provide additional information as to what is actually required around self-isolation?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I thank the Member for her question, and she is right: it is a lifeline. As MLAs with, I am sure, a busy constituency office, we have all got the distressed phone calls, and our constituency staff have as well. Through the Executive information website and our discussions with colleagues in Health and the PHA we are genuinely trying to ensure that there are no gaps. As I mentioned in response to Mark Durkan's question, that is on my list for discussions with officials just to be sure, to be sure. I have heard too many reports of people still feeling that this is a loan and that is why they did not apply, so something has gone wrong. We need to ensure that any clarification that is needed is provided after the statement this morning and that every aspect of government is aware of it. We are all living in each other's shadow, as we should be, but one Department should not be ringing another Department to find out what this is about; everybody should have the same level of consistency about this information.

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

Thank you, Minister, for your statement. It has to be welcomed. I welcome the easier payment method that will be used for the self-isolation payment. I know that 4,800 people were successful with their application up until October, but will the Minister inform me of how many people were unsuccessful?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I do not have that information. It is 14,800 people, Pat, so it is almost 15,000. I do not have the information about how many people were unsuccessful in terms of data from the Department. I have the anecdotal evidence. I have the people who are reaching out by email on our Assembly email, my constituency office and, indeed, on social media to tell me different, so there is an issue. When we get through this, we will start clicking through each of the questions that have been raised and will put this one down for clarification. If we have that data, I will certainly share it with the Member.

Emma Rogan (Sinn Féin, South Down)

Minister, you outlined how this support compares with what is available in Britain. Will you give us a brief outline on how it compares with what is available in the South?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The support is taxable in other jurisdictions, including the South. It is also for a fixed period in other jurisdictions, which it is not here. Indeed, the difficulty that I have, certainly with the other jurisdictions, is that they are giving it to people with one hand and taking it off them with the other. That is grossly unjust and grossly unfair.

Trevor Clarke (DUP, South Antrim)

Like others, I welcome the Minister's announcement. Those who are on low incomes will welcome it. It is a very worthy statement for the Minister to make. Given that some of those people are on low incomes and will return to work after the two-week period, is any protection afforded to them through their employer, as I am sure that there are cases of employers who do not want to release them? Whilst money is one thing, they are probably looking for job security as well. Is the Department doing anything on that to give them the guarantees that employers cannot move towards them during their periods of isolation?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The issue that I have always had with the fragility of zero-hours contracts in particular is that people are even more vulnerable and more susceptible to exploitation, if any employer is minded to do that, or, for want of a better term, if any employer wants to chance their arm. Employees have rights, and we will remind them of the rights that they have. If there are any indications or examples of workers feeling that they have not been given the due respect or, indeed, the due entitlement from their employer, I will certainly welcome hearing who they are and where their employer is. I would be happy to share that information with the Member's colleague Diane Dodds, because I am sure that she would not have that either.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for her answers thus far. The mantra for months now has been that we need a proper test, trace, isolate and support scheme.

We now have in place a scheme that allows low-paid workers to isolate and receive support. The Minister indicated earlier that she was looking at the level of income that a family can have to be able to claim the support. How quickly will she be able to carry out that review?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I will carry out the review as quickly as possible and look at the questions that have been raised, and I will put the officials on notice. I want to get the data, and, following Pat Catney's question, I will try to capture the data from people who were rejected.

As the Member will be aware, Deirdre Hargey increased the threshold. If I need to do that, and if I can do that, I will look to do that. People may think that £20,400 is a decent enough wage, but if that is your only income and you are paying all your bills and rearing your kids, it all adds up. So, we need to ensure that people who need the support get the support, and we will find out very shortly if the level of income needs to be increased because if it prevented people getting access to support, it is a problem that we need to look at.

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

The 14-day self-isolation period starts from the date that the message is delivered to the COVID app on a person's mobile phone. That is often not 14 days from when the person was last in contact with somebody with COVID-19. Will the Minister agree with me that an urgent and timely roll-out of the update to the app is crucial? That could see the amount of time that somebody is isolating reduced in some instances by 13 days, which would, therefore, ensure that her Department has more money to spend.

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I agree that there are issues with the app even for people who get confirmation of a negative or positive test result. The fact that they have gone to get a test means that they have concerns.

With regard to Trevor's question, we want to make sure that employers are adhering to that good practice because we are asking people who have any symptoms to isolate straight away, but we cannot ask people to follow government guidance and then have their salaries deducted because they have to wait for two days for a result from the app. We need to make sure that the app is better, but I want to make sure that, when people apply for the payment, they get it as quickly as possible and they are not held back by further bureaucracy that is not of their making.

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

I thank the Minister for her much-welcomed statement. It will come as a relief to many, as will her reassurances that she will look at the threshold, which we in the SDLP welcome. There are people out there saying that, when they come into contact with someone and get the alert, they cannot afford to isolate. That is a very difficult place for many to be in. Any support from this Assembly will alleviate that pressure.

The Minister spoke of parity. According to her, this scheme is more generous than elsewhere, but it is much more difficult to access, according to reports. What was the Barnett consequential derived from the introduction in Westminster of the self-isolation grant? Has all that money gone into this scheme?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

I received AME, so it is an AME issue rather than a Barnett issue because it is benefits related, so the money is there. If I understand the Member's question properly, there were issues regarding clarity over whether it was a grant or a loan. We all heard too many stories about people who felt that it was a loan and they did not want to get into any more debt.

The issue is that we, as a Government, are asking people to self-isolate, but we cannot ask people to self-isolate and not support them. That is the bottom line. So, that is what we are trying to do. Will there be lessons learned as a result of this? I am sure that there will be. It is like anything that we bring forward. We need to accept the good parts, change the parts that do not work and try to make it better in the future. Rather than waiting on a perfect fit, we need to get it changed, get it out, get it clarified, and, hopefully, people will get the support that they need.

Gerry Carroll (People Before Profit Alliance, Belfast West)

I thank the Minister for her statement. The £2·1 million divided out equally amongst 14,800 people amounts to around £150 each. I assume that some people got less and others got more. Is the Minister aware of the average payment that people received? How many people received £500 or more?

Carál Ní Chuilín (Sinn Féin, Belfast North)

The payment is better than £500. The £500 or €350 are fixed and taxable. If £100, €100 or €140 is taken for tax, the payment is less. If, for example, a couple has three children, they can receive £683 for the 14-day period of one isolation. If the same family has to isolate six or seven weeks later, they can expect to receive the same amount of support. That is not the case elsewhere. As long as the pandemic continues and more families are impacted by COVID, at least, once they have to isolate — I have heard of families having to isolate two and three times — we can ensure that we support them. We are asking them to follow government guidelines, so we need to make sure that the support is there, be it discretionary support, business support or whatever. If there is hardship, we need to get support out to people.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

That concludes questions on the Minister's statement. I ask Members to take their ease for a couple of moments as we move to the next item of business.

Alex Maskey (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

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

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

In compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I make the following statement on the twenty-first meeting of the North/South Ministerial Council (NSMC) in special EU programmes sectoral format, which was held in the NSMC joint secretariat offices in Armagh on Friday 30 October 2020.

As Minister of Finance, I represented the Executive and was accompanied by the Minister of Education, Peter Weir. The Irish Government were represented by Michael McGrath, the Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform.

At the outset of the meeting, there was a broad discussion on the implications of the EU exit and the impact of, and response to, the COVID-19 pandemic. The Council noted the commitments and guarantees agreed and put in place as part of the withdrawal agreement and political declaration to allow for the current Peace IV and INTERREG Va programmes to continue until completion, and for a successor PEACE PLUS programme to be funded. Those were recognised and welcomed. The impact of COVID-19 on the current Peace IV and INTERREG Va programmes was noted, and the Council welcomed the actions implemented by the SEUPB to assist project delivery and the measures put in place to ensure the continuation of programme implementation. It is noted that the PEACE PLUS programme will incorporate COVID-19 recovery actions and that the programme development process is continuing.

The chief executive of the SEUPB updated the Council on the progress of programme implementation. Some 96 projects worth €277·9 million, which represents 103·1% of total programme value, have been approved for Peace IV, and 34 projects worth €291·1 million, which represents 103·2% of total programme value, have been approved for INTERREG Va. The Council noted that the SEUPB continues to facilitate participation in the INTERREG Vb and Vc regional and transnational and interregional programmes. To date, approximately €16·5 million has been secured by 64 partners under those programmes.

Progress was outlined on the development of the future PEACE PLUS programme. Work will continue in order to deliver an agreed programme. A public consultation will be undertaken to provide for further stakeholder engagement. The Council noted that further discussion with Departments and Ministers will be required to reach an agreed programme. The final PEACE PLUS programme cooperation document will be submitted to both Administrations, the NSMC and the European Commission for approval.

Ministers noted that the SEUPB had produced draft corporate plans outlining the SEUPB key objectives for 2017-19 and 2020-22, and draft business plans for 2017-2021. The Council then approved those corporate and business plans and noted the budget provision for each. Ministers noted the SEUPB annual reports and accounts for 2016-18. Those were certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General in both jurisdictions and laid before the Assembly and the Houses of the Oireachtas. Ministers were advised that the 2019 SEUPB annual report and accounts will be submitted to the Council and laid before the Assembly and the Houses of the Oireachtas in due course.

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

In closing, Ministers noted that the SEUPB’s governance structures continue to operate effectively. The Council agreed that options for an independent organisational review of SEUPB will be considered by sponsor Departments and that draft terms of reference will be submitted to the NSMC for consideration prior to the commencement of any review.

The Council agreed to hold its next Special EU Programmes Body meeting in early in 2021.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his remarks and for coming to the House to give his briefing. The Minister noted in his statement that Peace IV and INTERREG Va are both at 103%. Some of us will be concerned about whether we will be able to brief a project that is already anticipated to be at 103%. Perhaps, in his closing remarks, the Minister will comment on that, and on how that is likely to come through. One might ask where the excess funding is going to come from. Will it be divided equally between the Irish Government, the EU and the United Kingdom Government? How will that be done? I welcome the Minister's remarks about progress towards COVID recovery. Will additional funding come to Northern Ireland as part of the COVID recovery actions and process? If that is the case, where is that funding likely to come from?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Chair of the Finance Committee for his questions. There is an overcommitment on both of those. From our discussions with the chief executive of the SEUPB, I think that that is based on the normal expectation and practice that there has always been an underspend. SEUPB is content that it will manage the overcommitment in terms of the final expenditure on the programme without having to seek additional funding to supplement or complement it.

In relation to future funding, PEACE PLUS currently sits at £650 billion — €650 million, sorry; if only it was £650 billion. If there is an additional commitment from London — there is a discussion ongoing between Dublin and London in relation to this — and the multiplier effect of that commitment is there from Dublin, then, if they match the percentage of that, it will take the figure for PEACE PLUS up to £1 billion, which will be very welcome in the time ahead. That discussion has not yet concluded, but I hope that the British Government will come forward and match the offer that has been made by Dublin.

Paul Frew (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister and his officials, who gave the Finance Committee a very useful and informative briefing on this last week. Minister, you state that £16·5 million has been secured to date by 64 partners. How much of that money has come to Northern Ireland? Out of the 96 projects for Peace and the 34 projects for INTERREG, how much of that money is forecast to come to Northern Ireland?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I will have to get the Member the actual figures; I will ask officials to forward those to him. In terms of contributions, there is a percentage worked out between the Executive, the Dublin Government, the British Government and Europe. The spend always has been largely in the six counties in the North and the six border counties, and I do not believe that there is anything untoward in the breakdown of all that, but I will be happy to get the Member the figures for all of those projects.

Maolíosa McHugh (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Ba mhaith liom buíochas a ghlacadh leis an Aire fosta as a ráiteas. I thank the Minister for his statement. As someone who lives ar imeall na teorann — on the edge of the border — I am only too well aware of the significance of the SEUPB and the many projects that have been delivered in our area. I am concerned for the future. What are the implications of Brexit for the current programmes?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I share the Member's view on the delivery of that, as a border dweller myself. The prospect is of a very significant delivery through the PEACE PLUS programme, which incorporates, as he will know, Peace and INTERREG as well. We always operate on the basis that this could be the last Peace programme, and I think we need to ensure that it has that impact in those border communities in particular, where some of the issues of the conflict were felt, and that, given the peripheral nature of communities there on both sides of the border, they are supported. Obviously, good work has been delivered, and I look forward to more good work and consultation with all of the stakeholders to ensure that we get the best possible value and outcome from PEACE PLUS.

There is obviously an initial uncertainty caused by the prospect of Brexit, but the guarantees included within the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration confirm the joint commitment of the EU and the British and Irish Governments to the continuation of the current Peace IV and INTERREG Va and the successor PEACE PLUS programme. Those guarantees will allow the current programmes to continue as normal and to be financed from the EU budget until their formal closure dates. In light of the coronavirus outbreak, the EU has also extended the final declaration dates for projects to fully spend their allocated funding as some recover from delays enforced on them. A financing and administrative agreement that will set out the legal, financial and governance frameworks for PEACE PLUS and, in turn, the SEUPB is currently being negotiated by the EU and the British Government.

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

I ask the Minister to say a little more about what he just mentioned — that is, the negotiations around the financing agreement and the future structures around this. Is there a worry that, if there is no deal between the UK and the EU on the future trade relationship, there is a risk to the structures in the commitments that were made in the withdrawal agreement and in the political declaration — certain Tory MPs have already cast doubt on many in the political declaration — going forward? Was that discussed at the NSMC?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

There is always a worry in relation to that. I think that we are right to be cautious, because the process of exiting the European Union has been anything but straightforward with regard to the British Government, and many things that have been — this goes across the whole issue that the Executive have to deal with — committed to and promised by the British Government have been abandoned or there have certainly been threats to abandon them at various stages. While we have the commitments, which were part of that withdrawal agreement and were agreed to, we have to be vigilant and continue to hold the British Government to account in relation to them.

The programme has delivered so much to communities that were so challenged over many years and affected by the impact of partition and then conflict, and that funding was one of the key contributions from the European Union to this part of the world, so we hope that that funding continues and is able to deliver projects that have made such an enormous difference. Both the Peace and INTERREG projects have made such a huge difference in the border area, and we want those to continue. We have to constantly be vigilant and keep a close watch on how these things develop.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement and his answers thus far. I remain firmly of the view that Northern Ireland has benefited greatly from its membership of the European Union, and the support funding that has been outlined here is clear example of that. Can the Minister provide an update on the replacement for the EU structural funds in terms of the Shared Prosperity Fund? We are still waiting for clarity on that, and it is an important issue.

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Yes, the Member is quite right that we are still waiting for clarity on the Shared Prosperity Fund. There is a commitment from the European Union to replace like with like, but we were also operating on the basis, as were Scotland and Wales, that the devolved Administrations would develop the programmes, allocate the money and do all that. There is huge uncertainty because of the legislation that is currently passing through Westminster, and that casts a significant doubt on that.

We have a lack of certainty on two fronts. One is that we have no firm commitment, other than a general one, on how those funds will be replaced, despite repeated requests from me and the Scottish and Welsh Finance Ministers, and a number of meetings where we were to seek clarity on that have been postponed in recent times, which is frustrating. We have not got that certainty, and, as I say, we are very concerned about developments with that legislation at Westminster, because the programmes have been delivered successfully locally by people who know the local issues, know the communities that will benefit most from the programmes and can get that support on the ground. Administering these things, allocating them and applying to programmes in Whitehall will not work for us. Scotland and Wales have the same opinion, and, equally, I am sure that it will not work for them. We certainly want full replacement, and we want the ability to allocate and design the programmes that will replace the EU funding.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Minister, thank you for your statement. Will PEACE PLUS see a reduction in the administrative burden on applicants or projects?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

That is certainly one objective that I have raised consistently with the Special EU Programmes Body, and it has assured me that it will endeavour to do that. I have been about long enough to have been involved in the original peace and reconciliation fund that was developed and delivered through councils back in the 90s. That funding was very accessible to grassroots community projects. I have had engagements over the last number of months with people who work at the coalface of the community and voluntary sector, and their view is that the funds have progressively become more inaccessible to small and grassroots community organisations and that you almost need to be partnered with a local government organisation or some substantial organisation to access the funding. We assume that, each time one of the programmes comes in, it may be the last one, so it is important that it leaves a valuable legacy and that there is accessibility to the programme.

Peace programmes were designed to get down to the grass roots, to communities on both sides of the border that had suffered as a result of the conflict, and a lot of projects achieved that. If PEACE PLUS is to be the last programme we receive, we need to ensure that it gets to where it is needed, and accessibility is something that I will continue to raise with the SEUPB. It will go to consultation, so I encourage all elected representatives and community groups to make sure that those issues are raised with it as well.

Pat Sheehan (Sinn Féin, Belfast West)

Gabhaim buíochas leis an Aire as ucht a ráitis. I thank the Minister for his statement this morning. What actions have been taken to protect projects and programme expenditure during the COVID pandemic?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

There has been recognition that COVID has caused some interruption to delivery, although, given our discussion with the SEUPB, it seems that it may not have been much as we had expected. Programmes have rolled on. However, as I said, the uncertainty around that has been dealt with, because we have some guarantee that the EU has recognised the impact of COVID and has allowed some headroom, if you like, to make sure that original time frames for spending the funds have been stretched somewhat. That will ensure that people can continue to spend on programmes held up by reasons genuinely beyond their control.

There is recognition that COVID has had some impact, though, thankfully not the impact that we expected. The EU has extended the final declaration date in order to allow projects to fully spend their allocated funding, and that is to be welcomed.

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

Thank you, Minister, and I thank your officials from the Department for briefing the Finance Committee. Brexit has already been mentioned, and there has been a promise of extra money to increase the total to £1 billion. We hear about the consultation and how we will try to get the money out to our community. Minister, are you fairly confident that the British Government will meet their commitment as promised?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The original commitment was for €650 million, and we are operating on the basis that that will be honoured. There is an opportunity to increase that amount. The Government in Dublin have indicated that they will make their contribution, and that creates a multiplier effect on the British Government's contribution and contributions from the Executive and the EU. The key to that is the British Government adding to their contribution, and I hope that they do so, because the overall effect will be to create a much bigger pot for PEACE PLUS — an extra 350 million — which, obviously would be very welcome for the communities that can access that funding. The commitment for the initial amount is there: we are trying to secure expanded funding to allow us to generate a much bigger pot across the board.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement. It is clear from the information that he has brought to the House, the sums mentioned and from what other Members have said that there is clearly commitment from the EU to Peace programme funding and supporting communities across the island, including my constituency. I have nothing but support for that type of programme. However, one issue that I and some of the groups that I am involved with have is the burden of the application. Will there be a reduction in the administrative burden for applicants?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

We would like to see that. Of course, there is a comprehensive auditing process for the EU, as the Member will understand. The EU is keen to ensure that the money it allocates and approves through the overall programme is spent in the way that was intended. There is always a balance between meeting auditing requirements to ensure accountability for spending of public funds and making sure that they are accessible, in particular to small, grass-roots community organisations that the initial Peace funding was intended to benefit. It was originally to bring benefit to communities and areas that previously had not received support from government or other programmes. There is always that balance, but I have been discussing that with the SEUPB, because there is a sense that, over the past number of programmes, the balance in the burden of bureaucracy has shifted somewhat to those who access the programmes. I have had conversations with the SEUPB about how to ensure that we get that balance right. As I say, it will go out to consultation. I encourage all groups to come forward with their views, because we want to make sure that we get that balance right and that the money gets to exactly where it is needed and will have most benefit.

Martina Anderson (Sinn Féin, Foyle)

Minister, following on from that, I acknowledge the fantastic work done by the community sector in Derry. Many of those organisations access the European social fund and are deeply concerned about the loss of that. Minister, you have talked about the consultation. Will there be a role for community organisations in the PEACE PLUS programme?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

Yes, absolutely. The consultation should be wide and accessible. All those who have issues to put forward or suggestions to make need to make sure that their voices are allowed to be heard in that consultation. That consultation should begin in the not-too-distant future. I encourage Members, particularly those who have a link to community groups, to make sure that, if those groups are not aware of that information, they know when the consultation is happening and how to access it and that they get the opportunity to make their case to it.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement. Minister, in the Executive Office Committee, we met the 11 councils over the last two weeks. Many of them detailed to us their serious concerns about their financial stability and delivering the EU programmes. I welcome your commitment in the statement that the PEACE PLUS programme will continue for the duration of this cycle, but it is not clear whether they will have funding going forward. Would you undertake to meet the 11 councils specifically to try to ease some of their financial concerns?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

I have no difficulty with that. I meet the councils frequently. I have met NILGA and others. The 11 council chief executives generally come together through the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE). I am absolutely happy to meet them. The commitment is there to spend out the Peace IV and INTERREG Va programmes. Even with Brexit and all the uncertainties, the commitment is there for €650 million for PEACE PLUS. We want to see that increased to much more. As I said in response to a previous question from your party colleague, despite all the uncertainties that come from Brexit and the negotiations, the posturing and the stands that have been taken in relation to some of the issues, we have to hold to that commitment. We have to be vigilant to make sure that that remains. We, from the European, Dublin Government and Executive sides, want to see these commitments being met. We want to see the funding expanded and being available over the next number of years. I am happy to talk to council groups about that.

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

I want to quickly recognise that it is World Prematurity Day. We think about all the mothers and families who have experienced challenges around early birth and recognise the brilliant support of the TinyLife charity.

Minister, thank you for the statement and for coming to the House this morning. Can you provide an update on the current funding for INTERREG programmes? There are concerns that funding may run out for several programmes; for example, the Carlingford to Newry greenway and the Smithborough to Middletown greenway. Can you provide certainty that funding will be provided for the completion of those projects?

Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin, Newry and Armagh)

The current programmes are to run their course. Allowance has been made to make sure that they are not interrupted by Brexit. On the more capital side with INTERREG, the EU has also allowed an extension to the completion and declaration date of programmes that have been interrupted by COVID and had undue delays. I do not think that you were in the Chamber for my first answer to the Chair of the Finance Committee. There is an overcommitment in funding, but the expectation is that there has always been an underspend. From the discussions that Minister McGrath and I had with the SEUPB at this meeting, we know that it fully expects to spend out the programmes. The SEUPB expects to meet all the programme costs that it has committed to. We will want to continue to monitor that in the time ahead, but those are the assurances that we were given.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

That concludes questions to the Minister on his statement. We are running approximately an hour ahead of schedule. I have been advised that the AERA Minister is about 10 minutes away. He is due to take the next two items of business.

In fact, he has just arrived. I ask Members to take their ease for a few moments.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Speaker has received notice from the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs that he wishes to make a statement.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, and in compliance with section 52 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I wish to make the following report on the sixteenth British-Irish Council (BIC) ministerial meeting in environment sector format, which was held in virtual format on Wednesday 4 November 2020. Declan Kearney MLA, junior Minister in the Executive Office, and I represented the Northern Ireland Executive at the meeting. This report has been endorsed by junior Minister Kearney, and he has agreed that I make the statement on behalf of both of us.

The British-Irish Council, established in 1999, is a forum for its members to discuss, consult and use best endeavours to reach agreement on cooperation on matters of mutual interest within the competence of its member Administrations. The BIC environment work sector is led by the UK Government and has proved a constructive and unique forum for facilitating evidence exchange and practical collaboration since the Council was established. The meeting held on 4 November focused on how the Administrations can work together on climate adaptation, to tackle invasive non-native species and to approach the issues connected with the marine environment.

The meeting was chaired by Lord Gardiner of Kimble, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State in the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA). The Irish Government were represented by Mr Eamon Ryan TD, Minister for Transport and Minister for the Environment, Climate and Communications. The Scottish Government were represented by Roseanna Cunningham MSP, Cabinet Secretary for Environment, Climate Change and Land Reform. The Welsh Government were represented by Lesley Griffiths MS, Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs. The Isle of Man Government were represented by Geoffrey Boot MHK, Minister for Environment, Food and Agriculture. The Government of Jersey were represented by Deputy John Young, Minister of the Environment. The Government of Guernsey were represented by Deputy Lindsay de Sausmarez, president of the Committee for the Environment and Infrastructure.

Ministers reaffirmed their commitment to conserve and sustainably use the ocean, seas and marine resources in accordance with UN sustainable development goal 14. The BIC environment work sector has two subgroups to cover the areas of marine litter and marine environment, including biodiversity, marine protected areas and ocean acidification. Ministers discussed priority areas where the two subgroups have been focusing their work and noted progress to date, including on commitments agreed at the BIC marine litter symposium in February 2019. Those commitments are to develop options to help to support sustainable end-of-life fishing gear disposal, support the reduction of plastic pellet loss and raise awareness of marine litter with young people and fishing professionals. Noting the challenges faced by the marine environment in our shared seas, we agreed to continue the ambitious programme of collaborative work, aligned with macro-regional and international obligations. Ministers discussed key aspects of the work being undertaken by the BIC climate adaptation subgroup, including to identify and share adaptation research and evidence and examine mechanisms to improve linkages between adaptation researchers across the BIC region; to foster cooperation and promote shared learning on measuring progress to minimise climate risks to critical infrastructure across the BIC region; and to identify and share information on best practice regarding community and private-sector engagement on climate adaptation, adaptation governance models and monitoring and evaluation of adaptation.

Ministers noted that the subgroup had delivered a virtual climate adaptation symposium on 20 October 2020, which focused on the topic of critical infrastructure and was hosted by the Irish Government. The symposium was attended by 80 delegates from the BIC member Administrations. It was agreed that further collaboration and engagement would continue via the BIC Environment work sector and its subgroup on climate adaptation.

Ministers were asked to note that BIC invasive non-native species (INNS) officials have been meeting biannually since 2013 to explore and agree areas of cooperation on INNS. The fourth BIC INNS workshop was held in Cardiff on 20 - 21 January 2020 hosted by the BIC secretariat and the Welsh Government. Ministers committed to an ambitious programme of collaboration, including on the Be Plant Wise and Check, Clean, Dry communications campaigns and on marine invasives such as the carpet sea squirt, as well as establishing an Asian hornet task force.

Ministers agreed that the 17th Ministerial meeting will be hosted in 2022 and that the BIC environment work sector would continue its focus on the marine environment, climate adaptation and invasive non-native species.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his statement. The Minister referred, in paragraphs five and six, to the topic of plastics. He will know that the fishing industry is greatly concerned about that and is prepared to play its part in helping to resolve the issue and protect the marine environment. Will the Minister elaborate on what options are being considered by his Department for the sustainable end of life for fishing gear?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

A decent conversation was held by the Ministers, and it was agreed that we would work with industry to develop solutions for collection and recycling of end-of-life fishing gear from the main fishing ports. There will be engagement with the fishing community to identify the best way forward in each of our areas, but there is a commitment to assisting in ensuring that that end-of-life fishing gear is appropriately and properly disposed of in an environmentally friendly and sustainable way.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

Minister, I see from your statement that two subgroups have been set up: I assume that they are an Irish subgroup and a British subgroup. What practical work has been carried out to date by the subgroups?

On another point, I see that you are not due to meet again until 2022: would more frequent meetings be beneficial?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It is for BIC members to decide the frequency of meetings. There are a lot of busy people involved in it.

A series of pieces of work have been done by the subgroups. Developing the issue of plastics and its impact on marine life is a key area: how we better educate the public on the use of plastics and indeed how we respond as individual Administrations in how we deal with plastics to ensure that there is less plastic around to enter the marine system. That is critical. Considerable work has also been done on the issue of invasive species, whether they are plant species or other living organisms. Those issues are of significant concern to us because those things can have a serious detrimental impact on us. There was considerable discussion of the Asian hornet as a consequence of its recent arrival.

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

Minister, the British-Irish Council is an important forum that brings together some of the smaller jurisdictions — even smaller than Northern Ireland. Did you discuss the climate action plans of the Isle of Man, which has a population slightly larger than Lisburn? The Isle of Man published a climate change Bill earlier this year. Did you discuss how it, a small jurisdiction, managed to do that? Did you raise with Deputy de Sausmarez from Guernsey, which has a smaller population than Lisburn, their intention to put climate change reduction into law. What I am trying to get at is whether the Minister discussed with those very small jurisdictions how they were able to put climate change plans into legislation so quickly.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

That was not on the agenda. One of the downsides of a virtual meeting is that we do not have the opportunity to have discussions afterwards, so I did not have that discussion. However, I am having discussions with my officials about climate change legislation, and that is something that I hope to go out to consult on very soon. That is entirely appropriate, because you do not legislate without going through a public consultation process first. That is how it is set out legally. I will seek the permission of the Executive to move forward on these matters quite soon.

Rosemary Barton (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Thank you for your statement, Minister. You referred to fostering cooperation, promoting shared learning and measuring progress to minimise climate risks. Have you given any thought to the various rules and regulations in Northern Ireland and in the Republic of Ireland? For example, the two jurisdictions have different planning rules and regulations for ammonia.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Knowledge sharing is critical to all of us. Therefore, where people have engaged in good practice that has delivered better outcomes than we have, we have to learn and develop from that. Education is not a matter of us seeking to educate the public; education is us learning from people who, in certain circumstances, have moved ahead of us. We may be ahead of others in certain circumstances, and they can learn from us. However, education is something that we should all engage in every day.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his statement and welcome the work being done by the environment work sector in setting up the subgroups on marine litter and marine environment. More specifically, is any work being done or being planned to deal with the environmental risk posed by end-of-life or abandoned vessels?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Abandoned vessels have been less of an issue in recent years than they were some time ago when part of the fishing fleet was scuttled. No grant has been available to cease fishing, so it has been less desirable, with older boats sometimes being kept in harbours for too long. It certainly is a challenge, and I acknowledge that. Because of the poor incomes, there has not been the replenishment of the fleet that should have taken place, and you can see that in our harbours. Consequently, we have a lot of boats that are up to 50 years of age, and we have a lot of wooden boats, which are less safe than the steel boats. I would like to see, as the fishing fleet can actually catch more fish, the fleet being redeveloped. In that event, what happens to the older, end-of-life, boats will become an issue for us to look at. However, it was not an issue discussed at this meeting.

Paul Givan (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Important meetings are taking place on the environment and climate change. In that respect, I know that the Minister is leading on the afforestation programme in Northern Ireland, and I commend him for it. He will know of a project in his constituency led by Lisburn scouts, seeking to acquire land for young people to appreciate. Did the Minister share any of the best practice that he is doing in Northern Ireland with the other jurisdictions?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Afforestation was not part of the agenda, but I know that there are organisations that are dedicated to ensuring that land that is currently in a forest remains that way. That is certainly something that we should support; if tree planting is taking place and we have created woodland, it should not be taken away. There are those who grow trees to be harvested, which is fair enough because those trees will continue to capture carbon, but we want to encourage the retention of forests with more traditional trees and native species.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Minister, you outlined how Ministers reaffirmed their commitment to UN sustainable development goal 5, one of the key aims of which is an end to destructive fishing practices. Was the issue of super-trawlers in Irish or British waters, and, specifically, in marine protected areas, raised at the meeting?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

It was not raised at the meeting, but the Member has raised a very important issue. We know that there are large trawlers with multiple nets, which harvest large quantities of fish. A lot of those emanate from France and Spain. Of course, they will not be in our waters if we have the right conclusion to the negotiations that are taking place this week.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for his statement and answers thus far. Minister, you talked in your statement about climate change, and reference was made to best practice for the private sector and the community sector in that regard. What learning did you take from the meeting on that?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

We considered climate change issues particularly around the seas and the impact that they have on the marine side. There is the issue of warmer waters and the consequences that come from that. There was also a strong focus on the pollution of the marine sector. A particular issue that was discussed at length was that of plastics and the beads that can get into our waterways. There is so much more that can be done to ensure that our waterways and marine life are protected from that. There is a course of work for us, as government, to drive forward in terms of plastics. I have already introduced an initiative to remove single-use plastics from the government system. I want to move forward on single-use plastic bags and reconsider what we are charging at the minute. It is only 5p; I think that that needs to be raised. There are courses of work that we can do to ensure that, in the first instance, considerably less plastic is used and, consequently, less plastic gets into our waters.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement. It is fantastic that the Council is meeting to address climate change and to protect our marine environment. There are wonderful aspirations and ambitions. Minister, can you tell me about anything that has actually been achieved to date? It does not fill me with confidence that the next meeting is not scheduled until 2022. Does that tell us that you understand the urgency of the issue?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

My Department is undertaking a study on end-of-life fishing gear and recycling and waste disposal. That evidence will be provided to the group. DAERA continues to input into the pilot project that is being led by Scotland into a supply chain approach to reducing plastic pellet loss. Northern Ireland continues to have high levels of participation in Eco-Schools, which is something that we were working on. That is about encouraging our young people and educating them on the threat to the marine environment, in particular.

In Northern Ireland, we are developing marine protection areas, looking at ocean acidification and my officials have participated in blue carbon workshops and in sharing examples of cross-border cooperation and work to identify other effective conservation measures. Quite a series of actions are taking place as a result. We do not need to meet all the time to do that. Actions are decided, subgroups are set up and officials are set tasks. I think that you can see from that that many tasks are being fulfilled.

John O'Dowd (Sinn Féin, Upper Bann)

Minister, paragraph 7 of your statement refers to the fact that various jurisdictions are looking at the risks posed to critical infrastructure by climate change. Has your Department identified such infrastructure and what actions to take to protect it from climate change?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

On managing the environment, one only has to look at what happened in Donegal this week. Something certainly went wrong there, which has implications. Those who were seeking to create renewable energy caused that, so how we do things can have an important impact on our infrastructure.

On our carbon infrastructure, one of the things that was done in previous years was to install drainage in our uplands. We have now discovered that much of that drainage work has led to a drying out of peatlands, which has the consequence of reducing our carbon storage.

It is critical that we do the right things to ensure that we mitigate climate change, reduce greenhouse gases and store more carbon. Those are all courses of work on which my officials are engaged, and I will liaise with the Assembly and the Committee as and when we get qualitative information on that.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank Minister for his statement. I want to ask him about the paragraph in the statement that deals with native invasive species. In that, there is a reference to "an ambitious programme of collaboration". Will the Minister elaborate on that programme and its likely impact?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

We have a significant problem in a number of areas with invasive species, and we need to meet that challenge head-on. In Northern Ireland, there have been considerable problems over the years with invasive species such as Japanese knotweed. Muntjac deer have also been a problem, although they are becoming less so. Of course, one of the very common invasive species is the grey squirrel, which has led to there being considerably less red squirrels.

More recently, the Asian hornet has developed into a problem and there are issues with the various barnacles that can be picked up by the boats on Lough Erne that travel up and down the Shannon and so forth. Those invasive species do not recognise borders. Therefore, it is very useful to have conversations with colleagues in other areas about how they have identified invasive species and can help to deal with them.

We are looking at issues such as hull fouling, horticultural escapes, contaminants of ornamental plants, ballast water, stowaways on fishing equipment and zoo or botanic garden escapes. All those things pose a threat to us. In addition to assisting GB plans, we are working on a Northern Ireland recreational boating pathway action plan, which will be followed by a horticultural plan. All those final plans have gone through consultation processes and will eventually be published.

We also see a benefit in having a joint approach with the Republic of Ireland in dealing with invasive species, and the joint development of the pathway action plan with Ireland is a two-strand approach.

As well as working with GB on a UK-wide basis, it would be beneficial to manage invasive species collectively. At this point, there is no formal agreement. However, that is, of course, the work that we are doing.

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

Everyone here will be aware that many provisions in the UK Environment Bill do not extend to Northern Ireland. As my South Belfast colleague Mr O'Toole has already mentioned, other regions that are represented on the Council have their own specific climate legislation, with different targets and deadlines. What challenges have been identified that relate to divergence in environmental law and its impact on future cooperation?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

For example, the UK legislation that is coming in sets a recycling target of 65%. I believe that we, in Northern Ireland, can achieve that and more. Whilst the law is set at 65%, and we have to agree to that, my preference is for a recycling target of 70%. I am giving that only as an example. We can all identify what is achievable. We have achieved much higher rates of renewable energy than any other part of the UK. Going forward, it is for the Department for the Economy to drive that.

Ultimately, I would like to see us get to the point of using and producing entirely renewable energy. However, I believe that 70% is achievable in the not-too-distant future. That is a course of work that we can engage in. We will set the targets for all those issues.

We are keen to progress our own climate change legislation. We will want to consult on that appropriately. I would like the consultation process to be shortened a bit in order to give the House and the Office of the Legislative Counsel time to do the work that they need to do. We know that there is public demand for it. Therefore, we will want to consult and see what public expectations are. At the same time, it is necessary for legislation.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Speaker has received notice from the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs that he wishes to make a statement. We will just give him one moment to get back to his place. When you are ready, Minister.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to talk to the House about my long-term vision for agricultural support in Northern Ireland. I also intend to announce a number of simplifications and improvements that I am making to the rules that govern the direct payment scheme for the 2021 scheme year.

Pillar 1 of the common agricultural policy (CAP) provided £293 million of direct support to Northern Ireland's farmers per annum. CAP payments have been of major importance in sustaining the industry in Northern Ireland and underpinning its competitive trading position. They have accounted for 79%, or £1·88 billion, of the cumulative total income of the Northern Ireland industry over the seven years from 2013 to 2019.

In 2018, my Department undertook an engagement exercise on a potential future agricultural policy framework for Northern Ireland. In that proposed framework, officials, in conjunction with key food, farming and environmental stakeholders, identified four desired outcomes and a long-term vision for the Northern Ireland agri-food industry.

Those outcomes are: an industry that pursues increased productivity in international terms, closing the productivity gap which has been opened up with our major suppliers; an industry that is environmentally sustainable in terms of its impact on, and guardianship of, air and water quality, soil health, carbon footprint and biodiversity; an industry that displays improved resilience to external shocks, such as market volatility and extreme weather events, which are evermore frequent and to which the industry has become very exposed; and an industry which operates within an integrated, efficient, sustainable, competitive and responsive supply chain, with clear market signals and an overriding focus on high-quality food and the end consumer. A number of projects have now been established in the Department to collate evidence, identify gaps and develop policies that will help to deliver those outcomes.

In June 2020, I announced my intention to bring forward a co-designed environmental strategy, entitled the green growth strategy, on behalf of the Executive. It will align economic growth and development with the protection and enhancement of natural assets. The Northern Ireland future agricultural policy framework has been developed in line with the green growth principles and will help to deliver its objectives. I anticipate launching that new future agricultural policy framework in early 2021, and I will update the House further at that time. Today, however, I want to broadly outline my vision for future support payments.

Leaving the EU provides for an unprecedented level of regional discretion and flexibility with regard to future agricultural support in Northern Ireland. This is the most significant change in policy to affect the agricultural sector in over 40 years. It means that our policies do not have to be constrained by the EU CAP pillar 1 and pillar 2 construct. We need to move to something new that better addresses the needs of Northern Ireland agriculture. It represents a unique opportunity to develop a new dynamic for key stakeholders across the food, agriculture and environmental spectrum to work with the Northern Ireland Government to chart a new way forward with common purpose. For that to be successful, it is vital that the long-term outcomes of productivity, resilience, environmental sustainability and supply chain functionality be kept to the fore, which will demand difficult choices, compromises and strong leadership at all levels.

Those four outcomes complement and reinforce each other, and they are broadly supported by stakeholders. A healthy and sustainable environment secures long-term agricultural productive capacity and underpins resilience. Productive agriculture minimises waste and maximises resource efficiency, which underpins environmental performance and reduces exposure to market risk. Furthermore, an integrated and efficient supply chain ensures that agricultural activity is properly focused on delivering market demands, thereby minimising wasted effort, wasted resource and inefficient supply chains and reflecting broader societal demands for sustainable production methods. The primary tools available to us — science, education, incentivisation and regulation — are applicable in helping to deliver all those outcomes. My focus is now on how we can best deliver the outcomes with the tools and resources that I have at my disposal.

Today also allows me to once again put on record that, going forward, I want to devise support schemes that provide opportunities for all our farmers — no farmer should be left behind. Schemes and support are needed to help farmers to develop their business, no matter where they farm, to become more efficient and to maximise the sustainable returns that they can achieve from the assets at their disposal. Those assets include the environmental assets on their farm. I believe that farms, especially those on hills and other disadvantaged areas, are well placed to play a major role in delivering more of the environmental outcomes that the people who live here want and that we owe to our future generations. I also believe that farmers should be properly rewarded for delivering those environmental outcomes and achieve a return on the environmental assets present on their farms. This offers a way forward where better economic performance and better environmental performance are the inseparable twin goals of any sustainable farm business.

The House will be aware that the UK Agriculture Act gained Royal Assent on 11 November. I very much welcome the Act, because it provides a platform on which we can start to move forward. Ideally, I would like to have had a locally developed agriculture Act taken through this House. However, that was not possible in the time available to us, but the Agriculture Act that we do have provides us with sufficient scope to introduce the changes that will set us on a new pathway.

The current working assumption is that the budget for future agricultural support payments for the remainder of the Parliament will be similar to the current direct agricultural support budget of £293 million per annum, plus a proportion of the pillar 2 budget. That ring-fenced funding will need to cover all the support measures that we wish to introduce. Current direct agricultural support is distributed by a decoupled area-based payment. I do not believe that that mechanism, as it stands, will deliver the outcomes and the agricultural industry that we wish to see. Nevertheless, I want to explore the role for a basic, area-based resilience payment that provides a safety net, but that must not blunt the incentive to become more productive and deliver better environmental outcomes. Careful analysis is necessary to identify an appropriate design of that mechanism that can reflect issues such as scale of operation — that is to say a cap on the maximum payment and, indeed, a minimum lower threshold — activity and so on and that is set in the context of a cross-compliance regime that is designed specifically for Northern Ireland to help to deliver policy outcomes.

That will take time, but it is my intent to move as quickly as I can on that in order to provide the budget necessary to deliver new schemes and approaches.

As part of that package, I wish to use a proportion of the agriculture budget to fund coupled payments, targeting, for example, suckler cow and breeding ewe producers. It is important to stress that that would not be a return to the coupled payments of the past. We need to design in features that will help achieve the goals of increased productivity and environmental sustainability. I have tasked my officials with completing a comprehensive review of the options for coupled support payments, and I hope to consult on it during 2021.

I will say something about coupled support for protein crops. I intend to introduce for 2021 a protein crop scheme for growing combinable beans, peas and sweet lupins. Those crops will create a domestically produced source of protein for animal feed and provide agronomic benefits within arable rotations. I intend to introduce it for 2021 on a pilot basis and then refine the approach for subsequent years to maximise the economic and environmental benefits.

A major part of the new agriculture framework will be the agrienvironment programme. As I have indicated, we need to create a regime that properly incentivises and rewards the protection of existing environmental assets and the creation of new ones. We will work with our farmers, land managers and environmental stakeholders to co-design a new approach to agrienvironment measures that is focused on delivering outcomes and a lasting legacy. We have the opportunity to create an approach whereby management of the environment becomes a profit centre within a farm business rather than a cost centre.

My officials are looking at a range of other issues that will contribute to a new agriculture policy agenda. Those include the role of capital support; generational renewal; upskilling and professional development; opportunities to develop the horticulture sector; and supply chain initiatives. I hope to say more about those in the early part of next year.

Although work is progressing to develop the long-term agriculture support strategy, I want to make some early changes that start to move us in the desired direction. I have therefore asked my Department to review our approach to the current schemes and to implement, where possible, improvements and simplifications that are in keeping with the longer-term direction of travel and that can be taken forward under the Agriculture Act 2020.

With that in mind, from 1 January 2021, I have decided to implement a number of changes. I have already announced that I will remove the greening requirements for the 2021 scheme year and incorporate the greening payment into the basic payment scheme (BPS) entitlement unit values. I will, however, retain the ban on ploughing or conversion of environmentally sensitive permanent grassland under BPS rules.

As currently designed, the objective of the greening requirements is to address a particular set of problems in cereal-producing regions where there is a predominance of very large fields that are devoid of landscape features and used for monocropping. The evidence is strong that the greening requirements of crop diversification and ecological focus area (EFA) retention have very limited relevance to Northern Ireland. If anything, they seem to have been counterproductive, by reducing the area of cropping and thus the diversity of land cover and habitat. My view is that, rather than persist with that failed initiative, it is much better to focus efforts and resources on developing bespoke environmental measures that will ensure the delivery of environmental outcomes tailored to Northern Ireland that are adequately funded.

Greening rules have added significant complications to the administration of direct agriculture support payments for applicants and those administering the scheme. Removing greening will also greatly reduce the inspection requirement associated with the direct payment regime. Incorporating the greening payment into the overall BPS entitlement values will mean that farmers will see no difference in the funding that they receive. The protection of environmentally sensitive permanent grassland will be enhanced by incorporating those rules into the basic payment scheme rules.

Whilst work on the development of bespoke environmental measures takes place, Northern Ireland's robust set of environmental laws will continue to provide protection against biodiversity loss. It is also important to remember that landscape features such as hedges and sheughs will continue to be protected under cross-compliance.

On the capping of payments, given that the changes for 2021 do not have a primary aim of altering the amount of funding that farmers receive in 2021, it is my intention to make a technical adjustment to deliver a neutral solution on capping. That is for 2021 only, however. I will want to look at capping more closely as part of the longer-term approach to support, and I have asked officials to bring forward options for consideration.

For 2021, for applications from young farmers and new entrants, I am limiting the number of entitlements that can be allocated or topped up from the regional reserve to 90 for each application. That brings the approach into line with the young farmers' payment. The aim is to prevent very large allocations from the reserve to individual farm businesses, which are difficult to justify but which cannot at present be prevented. That change will also reduce the incentive to submit speculative claims or to exploit the reserve.

I will limit over-declaration penalties to 100% of the amount due based on the area determined. That will eliminate the need to apply offset penalties in subsequent years. At present, in some cases where an over-declaration is large, the over-declaration penalty exceeds the payment due prior to penalty. In such cases, the payment is zero, and the outstanding part of the over-declaration penalty is offset against future payments made to the business over the next three years. I believe that the reduction of the payment to zero is an adequate deterrent against speculative claims involving the declaration of a large proportion of ineligible land.

I have asked my officials to review the approach to the application of cross-compliance penalties as soon as possible. My aim is to ensure that penalties are proportionate and reflect the seriousness of the non-compliance identified. As I said, using the primary powers in the UK Agriculture Act, secondary legislation to give legal effect to the 2021 scheme is being drafted. I will bring this forward under the draft affirmative procedure.

I assure the House that, in developing the future agricultural framework and our approach to future agricultural support payments, I will consult with the full range of agricultural and environmental stakeholders and keep you all updated. My ultimate aim is to ensure that we take full advantage of the opportunity to develop a sustainable agriculture industry in which farmers are supported on an equitable basis. That will be underpinned by a set of bespoke measures that will ensure the delivery of productive, environmentally sustainable, resilient and supply chain-focused outcomes tailored for Northern Ireland.

Harry Harvey (DUP, Strangford)

Minister, I welcome your statement. You mention a pilot scheme to maximise the benefits of protein crops, beans and sweet lupins. How do you propose to encourage farmers to partake in this scheme, and has it been tried before?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Such a scheme is currently available in the Republic of Ireland. As I understand it, close to €100 per acre of support is available. It has been used there.

There are three particular advantages to growing protein crops. First, it increases rotation. Protein crops are good for soil in that they break it up quite well. Secondly, protein crops — for example, beans — capture nitrogen from the air. We have an issue with nitrogen deposition into our peatlands, so something that removes nitrogen from the atmosphere is positive. Thirdly, protein crops grown here will displace — I recognise that the displacement will be small — some of the requirement for the importation of grains such as soya, which are grown largely in South America, where an element of that is grown by removing rainforests. On the environmental side, there are significant advantages to growing protein crops in Northern Ireland, which is why I want to take that forward.

Philip McGuigan (Sinn Féin, North Antrim)

Minister, thank you for the statement. It is lengthy and contains a lot of detail. I look forward to going through it in my role on the Committee and to working with you. In total, the annual CAP basic payment is £293 million and represents 79% of the total income of our farmers. Currently, that is wholly funded by the EU. Does the Minister agree that a level playing field on the island of Ireland is critical to the smooth operation of our agri-food economy and that any future policy that diverges from CAP could disadvantage our primary producers and rural communities here in the North?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Anything could happen. We also could be advantaged as a consequence of moving away from CAP. I indicated that I will remove the greening requirements, which are much more applicable to large grain-growing areas in France, the east of England and so forth and are not of benefit in Northern Ireland.

Moving away from the CAP creates an obvious benefit in that respect without creating any environmental detriment. So, there will be areas such as moving away from the CAP, which was a very broad-based scheme for all of the European Union, where we will be able to make support systems for farming that are bespoke to our needs. Therefore, I believe that we can drive greater productivity and better environmental outcomes at the same time by developing our bespoke scheme, and I look forward to working with the Committee in doing that.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement. As we are moving forward, basic payments are, of course, crucial to underpinning farm life and providing support income to farmers. With Brexit looming, can the Minister advise us what further assurances have been sought or received from the Westminster Government about additional and continuing support for farmers?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

We, along with other devolved Administrations, continue to raise these issues with the UK Government, so we take the opportunity at inter-ministerial group meetings to raise the issues of continued support. We continue to receive reassurances on that front, but we will continue to keep pressing the case for agriculture and the environment in Northern Ireland.

It was probably a much easier case to make pre-COVID, as there was a fair bit more money in the system, but if the UK Government has to keep borrowing money at the rate that it is — I know that other European countries are in the same position — then that is going to put pressure on every other area, and that is something that we need to be alert to. The COVID crisis is creating unsustainability with regard to the public finances. I trust that the vaccine will allow us to move on from this, but as a consequence of COVID, we are going to be left with debts that are akin to debt that would be achieved by a war. Ultimately, that could put pressures on public finances, and that could impact on us.

Rosemary Barton (UUP, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Minister, you said that a major part of the new agricultural framework will, of course, be an agri-environment programme. Do you foresee that the Northern Ireland Environment Agency (NIEA) and the Shared Environmental Services (SES) will work with the agricultural community in a more supportive role to enable modern and progressive farming in parallel with the protection of environmental assets?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I cannot speak for Shared Environmental Services because it is paid for by councils and is independent of the Department. NIEA is responsible to us, although some Members would prefer that we have an entirely independent environmental protection agency. I suggest that the Members who look for an independent environmental protection agency look at the role of SES before considering whether that is what they really want.

In some of the more marginal areas, where the land may not be as productive for the likes of big dairy and beef farms, a lot of people have ensured the renewal of their farms through building chicken houses. If you go into many parts of County Tyrone, for example, you will see that many chicken houses have been built there, and those properties have ensured that people who have an agricultural skill have been able to stay on a farm that would not otherwise have been productive enough to keep them. Sustainability is about having a sustainable environment, economy and food production.

Therefore, on all of this, dealing with a problem is not done through the blunt instrument of planning; it is actually about tackling the issue of ammonia, which needs to be addressed. The Department is working very hard to bring forward proposals on that issue that will make a significant impact on reducing the ammonia emissions and, consequently, will negate the damage that would be done to the environment by further production.

We want to encourage further production, but we want to do it in a way that is sustainable. The Department is working towards that, rather than just saying, "This is a problem, so we will stop doing that and that will end the problem". We need to address the issues that will resolve the problem, but that will still allow sustainable food production to continue.

John Blair (Alliance, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for his detailed statement. Point 13 seems to indicate a preference for a bespoke Northern Ireland agriculture Act. Given the statement by the Minister, the reality of the importance of agriculture to our economy, the particular quality of our farm product and the problem of rising ammonia levels, could such an Act be developed to deal with those issues? Are there plans in place to deal with that and, if not, could such plans be put in place?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

One of the problems that we have is that this mandate runs out in 2022. For any legislation to get through now is going to be particularly challenging. You have the consultation process, there is then work to do with the Office of the Legislative Counsel (OLC) in developing the legislation and then the normal process of going through the Assembly, which can take up to a year.

Whilst I would like to do an agriculture Act — that is something that is desirable — I am not sure that we will have the capacity to do it in the time frame available, particularly given that the UK has just passed its Agriculture Act. Whilst it is not perfect for us, it certainly gives us considerable cover.

I have a number of pieces of legislation that I intend to bring forward, but I do not think that I can achieve an agriculture Act in the proposed lifetime of the current Assembly.

William Irwin (DUP, Newry and Armagh)

I thank the Minister for his statement and his vision for the future of agriculture. It is clear that the Minister has a wide knowledge of grassroots agriculture.

Minister, you said that you would look at cross-compliance penalties. There has been an issue in the past, of which the Minister will, I am sure, be aware, whereby penalties applied to farmers were appealed. The farmers went to an independent panel which, in some cases, adjudicated and supported the farmers, but the Department refused to agree to the independent panel's decision. What is the Minister's view on that?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I used to find it incredibly frustrating when, having represented a constituent who, having won a case at an independent panel, received a letter from an Agriculture Minister — generally, the Agriculture Ministers were named Michelle at the time — indicating that they were overturning the decision of the independent panel. I have made it clear to my officials that I will not be overturning the decisions of an independent panel. Why have an independent panel look at these things, give an assessment of how the Department came to its point of view on what the individual who made the claim had done, arrive at a conclusion on the information presented, only then for a pen to be put through that decision? It is entirely inappropriate and I will not be doing that. I have made it clear to officials that, when an independent panel makes a decision, it is the final decision.

Declan McAleer (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

I welcome the statement from the Minister. In paragraph 32, the Minister made reference to a neutral solution on capping. Can you elaborate on that? I aware that, during the last CAP reform, there was a cap put on the Basic Payment Scheme (BPS), because there was a situation before that where some farmers were getting the best part of a third of a million pounds in a single farm payment per year, which works out at nearly £1,000 a day. There was then a cap put on that. What specifically are you referring to? What are your ideas around the neutral solution on capping in the statement?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

For 2020-21, I do not intend to change the capping that is in place, but I make it clear that I intend to change capping going forward. As we discuss these issues, I do not believe that some of the payments are appropriate. I know that some of the farms are large-scale, but, as we go forward, I would prefer to see the money spread more evenly and to see a greater proportion of farmers who are not just as large in scale receiving it. I would also like to deal with some of the hobby farming that takes place, where there is no real reliance on farming but people maybe keep a small acreage in order to engage in the hobby of farming. I want to support the people who are reliant on farming for a living, and if someone receives large amounts of money that goes into the hundreds of thousands, they are somewhat less reliant than people who operate with perhaps £15,000 of profit in a year. It is hard to feed your family and to keep a home with that sort of profitability.

Colm Gildernew (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

Paragraphs 7 and 8 of the statement make reference to the European Union. Given that we are still in the EU regulatory zone and, thankfully, retain full access to the EU market, does the Minister appreciate the importance of continuing to align with EU policies in order not to disadvantage our local farmers compared with farmers in the South and in other parts of the EU?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

On the regulatory aspect of it, the answer is yes: we will align because that is part of the protocol agreement. That is somewhat unfortunate because some of the cross-compliance things do not act to our benefit. Nonetheless, that is where we are.

Moving forward, I remind Members that, whilst the protocol kept us in the single market, oddly enough, the European Union does not want Northern Ireland to be a participant in its free trade agreements. I would challenge the European Union on that. If it wants to keep us in the single market, why should it be with second-class citizenship in that single market? If we are producing goods to exactly the same standards as the rest of the European Union, why are we not entitled to be part of its free trade agreement? We will be part of the UK's free trade agreements, but why is the European Union not doing that? I understand that the reason why it is not doing that is because there is too much work involved. I suggest that that be reconsidered, because if we are going to be part of the single market, as the EU desired and negotiated with the UK Prime Minister and as was decided by the Westminster Parliament, we should get the advantages of it, not just the disadvantages.

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

I thank the Minister for his statement. Thank you for educating me, Minister. I thought that "sheugh" was an agricultural slang word, but now I know that it is a real word that has its origins in Irish. Some of my more learned Gaelic-speaking friends might be able to give me more information on it.

A typical farm in south Armagh is 80 acres of land ownership with 40 acres taken and 100 head of cattle that are mixed beef suckler herd, so what were the basic payments that they received and what will be the basic payments going forward as part of your proposals?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

The posh word for sheugh, of course, is "drain". I thought that it was more Ulster Scots than Irish, but perhaps Patsy could educate us on that. Nonetheless, it is a good owl word that is used in the country, and people understand sheugh better than drain. Drains are very often enclosed, and sheughs are always open. Anyway.

I know the farms in County Armagh very well. I visit that area from time to time. I talk to farmers from County Armagh.

I know the land type in that area, and, ultimately, it is more suitable to suckler, particularly in its southern part, than it is to dairy. The more northern part of Armagh is probably more suitable to dairy.

We are looking at how we take away the broad instrument that just gives somebody a payment and does not reflect a lot on the work that they do and at how we make that instrument one that encourages people to engage in keeping appropriate numbers of livestock for their farms and ensures that they are supported to do that.

Support for the suckler cow is key. The Livestock and Meat Commission (LMC) has put forward proposals, along with the Northern Ireland Meat Exporters Association (NIMEA) and a number of other organisations, that look at support for suckler cows, beef finishing and so forth. It is important that we throw these things open to discussion and set out an element of it that will go for that type of support. That will be removed from the basic payment and be shifted over to the other pillar, which will allow us to particularly encourage younger people to engage in farming.

I know a lot of young people who would love to farm but they do not have the land. There may be land in the family, but they just cannot make enough money to get going at it. I would love to encourage more young people to go into farming because it is a great way of life. It is a great career, but young people need to be able to put bread on the table and provide for their family if they go into it.

Emma Sheerin (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

I thank the Minister for his statement. He reiterated the point in paragraph 11 that he wants no farmer to be left behind. It is an unfortunate reality that many decisions that the Minister has taken this year have left a lot of farmers feeling left behind, notably the decision to stop the transition towards a flat rate, which would have allowed farmers operating below the regional average an expected pay increase of about 14%, as well as his refusal to reinstate the areas of natural constraint (ANC) payment against the wishes of the House. What specific commitments can the Minister make today to assure farmers in less favoured and severely disadvantaged areas that they will no longer be left behind?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

If one looks at the payment system for the scheme five or six years ago compared with where it is now, one could not describe those areas as being left behind vis-à-vis others in agriculture. Quite a lot of lowland farms are not particularly profitable, and people need to recognise that. Farming in general is not that profitable. Therefore, we need to encourage farming and farm systems to maximise the value of their product and to market their product in a way that gains the highest income. It is about us providing support to farmers to make real environmental benefits. I am open to ways of doing that, and I am happy to discuss that fully with people in the uplands. They know better than anybody how to make their land productive. I am happy to engage in qualitative discussions with folks in the uplands as to how best we can take things forward, but I do not believe that a flat-rate system benefits agriculture or a lot of smaller farms, and it is not the way forward for the future of Northern Ireland.

Andrew Muir (Alliance, North Down)

I thank the Minister for his statement. Paragraph 31 states that:

"Northern Ireland’s robust set of environmental laws will continue to provide protection against biodiversity loss."

Does the Minister agree that, to strengthen those laws and to ensure proper enforcement, we need an independent environmental protection agency to be brought forward in legislation and enacted before the end of this Assembly term?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I hear about independent environment agencies, and about independence in general, and then I hear Members say that the courts have not fined someone enough. I hear Members challenge the courts over their fining system all the time in the Chamber. The courts are an independent agency. I hear Members discuss Shared Environmental Services and the quality of its planning advice, and they are critical of it in the Chamber. SES is an independent body. I often ask, "What are we elected to do?". We are elected to be accountable to the people. What is wrong with having a system through which there is accountability to the Chamber for environmental regulation? An independent environmental protection agency would not provide that. I can come to the Chamber and be held to account for the actions of the NIEA. It has a lot of autonomy, but I can be held accountable for its actions in a way that I could not be for the actions of an independent environmental protection agency.

One thing that I will be held accountable for is what I want to do for uplands. One factor that has contributed to the loss of biodiversity is decisions that were made in the past to drain areas in the uplands, which made farmland more productive there. We now know, however, that the most harmful factor of carbon capture in our peatlands is a loss of water. The reality is that we need to wet areas around those peatlands once again. One of the things that we need to do with this new scheme is support those farmers. If we are going to wet land that they are not going to be able to use productively, we need to support them financially for the environmental benefit that will be created by wetting the peatlands once again. That is an important piece of work. I am happy to be held accountable for those things. I do not believe that that would be the case if there were an independent environmental protection agency. It would add another layer, but, ultimately, it is for the Assembly to decide.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I thank the Minister for his statement, which referred to an integrated and responsive supply chain as one of his desired outcomes for future policy. In the absence of an effective Groceries Code Adjudicator (GCA) and legislation guaranteeing minimum farmgate prices, can you seriously deliver that outcome?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I agree with the Member that the Groceries Code Adjudicator is not particularly effective. This year, on the back of COVID, there has been a noticeable switch, with more people buying their own produce than eating out. That demonstrates to me that perhaps the grocery supply chain is not the worst problem that we have, albeit the big supermarkets have massive buying power. The public are quite discerning, however, and they like food that is produced locally when they are shopping in supermarkets. You do not have the same opportunity to do that if you go out to a restaurant or a cafe.

There has been a tremendous movement towards buying local. Local butchers' shops and vegetable shops and so on have been doing well throughout COVID, because people have wanted that reassurance. I therefore want to build on the fact that people know that food that is grown in their own country is generally food that is grown to a high standard. If I import chicken from some of the places in the world from which we are importing it, I do not have the same assurances that the standards are the same as they are here. People talk about chlorinated chicken. The problem is not with the chlorination of the chicken but with the fact that there is considerable salmonella in the chicken. That means that the chicken needs to be chlorinated in the first instance. The reason that there is considerable salmonella is that the stocking rates for the houses for those chickens are far higher than they are here. As a consequence, they produce chicken more cheaply, because the stocking rates are higher, but it is not of the same quality as what is produced locally. We need to be absolutely certain that the public know that what they are buying here is produced to the highest possible standards in eating quality, provenance, traceability, food miles and environmental impact. I believe that, in Northern Ireland, we can produce a product that ticks the A* list on every front. If we can just introduce a few more measures, we will be top rate for every aspect of our food production.

Kellie Armstrong (Alliance, Strangford)

Minister, as you will know, I am from the Ards peninsula, and one of the areas that is extremely important to me is the work of the Ards peninsula coastal erosion group, on which a number of your colleagues work. Earlier today, regarding climate change adaptation, you talked about:

"identify and share information on best practice regarding community and private-sector engagement on climate adaptation, governance models".

Has there been any discussion on coastal management? We have a situation at Anne's Point, outside Greyabbey, where the reclaimed land has been breached. The lough has come in and basically poisoned it. You can see that the trees are dead now. Is there anything on that modelling and governance? For instance, has taking away the Bateman principle and bringing something new on board been discussed?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

While coastal erosion is not part of my statement, it is a very important issue. County Down has a much softer landscape than County Antrim, which has considerable amounts of basalt and so forth. At Portstewart, I always remark on those rocks that have withstood that battering year after year after year. County Down does not have as sustainable a coastline in that respect.

We take coastal erosion very seriously. I am looking at LiDAR mapping all of Northern Ireland. That will involve our coastlines and will be a huge source of information. I want to work with the Department of Finance, which has its own plane, on that, and it will give us a huge amount of information. I want to do it in conjunction with soil analysis, testing every field in Northern Ireland, which will lead to our having a much greater understanding of the nutrient requirements in Northern Ireland as we move forward on an environmental front. I want us to do considerable work on slurry separation and on the pelletisation of phosphates, because we have too much phosphate. Instead of that going onto our land and ultimately into our waterways, it becomes a marketable product to other parts of the world that are phosphate-deficient. We need to look forward to all those things. We cannot stand still. We cannot do everything in the same way for decades and expect the same results, because the world is moving on. Things are changing, and ultimately we can do things that will be not only of considerable environmental benefit but of financial benefit. We need to delve into those areas and ensure that we can support farms and agricultural producers as they move to these schemes.

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

On the issue of the quality of our local food, we should be cognisant of the fact that people will buy the food that they can afford. Given the economic ramifications of the crisis that we are in at the minute, we need to be careful that the potential for cheaper imports to be within the budget of people here does not allow our good quality to be the major export for other markets. That brings me to your response to Ms Sheerin's earlier question. I hope that you can give us a wee bit more detail on the support schemes to provide opportunities for all farmers. Are you thinking, for example, of specific measures to address farm poverty and the decline in farmgate prices? I ask that because I heard a story from a farmer, who told me that, just two years ago, he invested a £500,000 loan into a new hen laying unit, and he —

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member has asked her question.

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

— had planned to take 10 years to pay that back and take a £15,000 salary for himself.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Member has asked her question.

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

A neighbour's son worked in a local factory and earned more for the same —.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

Order. Will the Member come to a conclusion with her question? It is meant to be a short introduction and a question.

Clare Bailey (Green, Belfast South)

OK. That was my question. Are particular efforts being made to really get stuck into addressing the disparity in farm poverty?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Yes, the Member raises that specific case, and that is the sort of investment that is very often required to be sustainable in modern farming. You are looking at investments of hundreds of thousands of pounds just to create something that is viable and produces a way forward. Profitability is key, and how we support our agriculture sector in being profitable is much more important than support packages, because that is how people want to make their living. Where possible, they do not want to be dependent on government handouts. They want to make the money themselves. People who are working extremely hard every day deserve to have a good income on the basis of their hard work. We want to provide a means of ensuring that agriculture remains sustainable, and having an envelope of close to £300 million is a huge asset to us. How we spend and utilise that is incredibly important in ensuring that we get to the point where people are productive in bringing in their own finances.

Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice, North Antrim)

I generally welcome the Minister's statement. I am sure that it is a great disappointment to the many doomsayers, some in the House and some outside, who told us that, after Brexit, there would be no farming and no money because the cash cow of the EU would be no more. What a lot of nonsense that was.

I generally welcome many of the things in the statement, particularly the end to greening, but I notice the pledge that no farmer will be left behind, so I ask the Minister this: when it comes to the application of the environmental policies, can he ensure that that happens? For example, he has talked to the House about introducing a requirement for injection-only slurry spreading. There are many small farmers who will never be able to afford the equipment for that, so, in adjusting those policies, will he, please, bear in mind that no farmer should be left behind?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

I accept what the Member says. Whilst we are moving towards that, and there are very clear environmental benefits from it, there are also agricultural benefits in that there is greater utilisation of the nutrients that are applied to the land and less loss to the atmosphere as a consequence. On particularly steep land, that can be more challenging, and those are issues that we will need to address going forward. Many small farmers will, of course, use contractors, and whilst the contractors have a significant charge per hour for the utilisation of such equipment, they do an awful lot of work in a very short time, so it very often pays better to bring in someone else to do it as opposed to having your own equipment. Nonetheless, the Member raises a valid point. We must ensure that we create schemes and systems that are not punitive but ensure that we can assist the environment at the same time as encouraging good farm practice so that it does not lead to a situation where engaging in that becomes unaffordable for people.

Stewart Dickson (Alliance, East Antrim)

Thank you, Minister. I have been listening to the debate this morning, and I have some concerns and interests around the future of the agricultural policy, as you described it in the statement, particularly around the areas of resilience, increased productivity, environmental sustainability and improved resilience. How do you believe that that can be achieved without the support of the European Union, without the ability to sell goods into the European Union, if that becomes a difficulty and a Brexit deal cannot be done, and, indeed, without the support of the common agricultural policy?

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Whilst there are many disadvantages to the protocol, there is one advantage in that we have access to the single market. So, selling to the European Union going forward is not an issue; it is not a problem. Northern Ireland, of course, will have full access to sell to the UK market, which is the strongest market anywhere in Europe. It is the strongest market for beef, for example; it pays a higher price for beef than anywhere in the European Union. We will have access to the UK market, which takes over 50% of our product. The European Union takes around 25% of our product, and the rest of the world takes the other 25%. I am confident that we will be able to utilise and sell well into those markets.

I made reference to the European Union free trade agreements. It is somewhat incongruous that, whilst the European Union is keeping us in the single market and we then have to apply all the rules of the single market, it did not seek to benefit us with the free trade agreements that it is settling with other people. The European Union clearly wants to keep Northern Ireland locked in in many aspects but not in the advantageous aspects. It should reconsider that. I know that it involved work for the European Union; nonetheless, either it plays fair or it does not play at all.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Thank you for your statement, Minister. Can you please outline how the environmental plans contained in it integrate with payment plans and if any transition is required? Further to that, what conversations will you have with the Department of Finance? Obviously, there is a lot of learning from efforts to get the COVID payments and business support grants out.

Edwin Poots (DUP, Lagan Valley)

Two issues. On the environmental plans, this was a formative statement that wants to open up a debate as to how best we can do things and how we can better utilise this £300 billion package to support production and the environment. In some areas, farmers will benefit more from environmental aspects than the production end. Whilst farmers would prefer to be engaged in production, for most of them, the bottom line is what really matters. We will focus very heavily on ensuring that we get better environmental outcomes from the money that we invest in single farm payments.

Roy Beggs (UUP, East Antrim)

The Business Committee has arranged to meet at 1.00 pm. I propose, therefore, by leave of the Assembly, to suspend the sitting until 2.00 pm. The first item of business when we return will be questions to the Minister of Justice.

The sitting was suspended at 12.53 pm.

On resuming (Mr Deputy Speaker [Mr McGlone] in the Chair) —

Oral Answers to Questions — Justice

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

1. Mr Durkan asked the Minister of Justice whether she is on target to introduce a protection from stalking bill to the Assembly in November or, at the latest, early December 2020. (AQO 1112/17-22)

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

6. Mr Stalford asked the Minister of Justice when she plans to introduce anti-stalking legislation. (AQO 1117/17-22)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. With your permission, I will answer questions 1 and 6 together. I am committed to ensuring that the law provides the most effective protection for victims of stalking and that it is progressed as a matter of urgency.

I have met with victims of stalking and heard of the horrendous experiences to which they have been subjected. I want to ensure that victims of this insidious crime will be able to get the justice and protection that they so desperately need and deserve. That is why I am pleased to report that the drafting of the protection from stalking Bill is nearing completion, and my intention is to introduce the Bill to the Assembly in December. This stand-alone Bill focuses on introducing a specific offence of stalking and includes a provision for the introduction of stalking protection orders, which will offer victims of stalking immediate protection from the perpetrator.

Mark Durkan (Social Democratic and Labour Party, Foyle)

I thank the Minister for her answer. I am delighted to hear of the progress that she is making on the drafting of the Bill. Will the Minister outline to the House her vision of what the central components of such legislation should be?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

First, as I said in my original answer, the intention is that there will be protections for victims of stalking and that those will be included in the Bill. The intention is also that the definition of stalking will be clarified in law. At the moment, as you know, there can be issues with the ability to use harassment laws to prosecute stalking behaviour. This would, I think, set a clearer course by defining a more specific offence of stalking. It would also offer protections, meaning, for example, that it would lie with the PSNI to take forward a stalking protection order rather than the individual having to seek a non-molestation order, which, as most Members recognise, can be challenging.

Christopher Stalford (DUP, Belfast South)

I welcome the fact that the legislation is due to come forward in December. Every person should be free from stalking or harassment. The Minister will know that a crucial element of any such propositions that make their way to the statute book is having a sufficient budget available to allow speedy access to justice. Has the Department estimated what the financial requirement will be to ensure the implementation of this welcome legislation?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for his question. The issue here is, I think, not one of creating new duties and obligations, which would lead to increased costs. The issue is improving access to law where current access is difficult: for example, by using the harassment provisions that are already in statute. We do not anticipate that there will necessarily be huge costs. One of the issues in delivering this is that, as things stand, when people seek protection from harassment, it can often lead to very complicated and protracted court cases. Simplifying the offence should make it easier for people to get the protections that they need.

There will, of course, be some transfer of responsibility, because the financial obligations of seeking a non-molestation order lie with the person who applies. Whilst applicants may be able to get some assistance through legal aid, depending on their means, this would then fall to the PSNI. That is one of the issues that we will look at when considering how we will budget. We do not anticipate a significant increase in cost.

Linda Dillon (Sinn Féin, Mid Ulster)

The Minister has highlighted some of the issues that are of greatest concern to us. She spoke about the harassment and intimidation legislation that is available at the moment. We know that the sentences for those offences can be quite lenient. Can the Minister give some assurance that the sentences related to the stalking Bill will reflect the seriousness of the crime?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

It is absolutely crucial that they do. The Member, as a member of the Justice Committee, will have the opportunity to scrutinise the sentences when the Bill comes forward. Indicative of where we are heading is the fact that we intend our stalking offence to be quite similar in structure to the model that applies in Scotland. That model was introduced in 2010.

Therefore, we will have an opportunity to inform policy here through the experience of Scotland.

Paula Bradshaw (Alliance, Belfast South)

Minister, given that Northern Ireland will be the only jurisdiction in the UK with its own stand-alone stalking Bill, how will our offence compare with those in the other parts of the UK?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

It is important for us to seek to build the most robust preventions for stalking that we can in legislation, and we do that by comparing what other jurisdictions already have in statute. From our perspective, this is one way of making sure that our provisions will be more robust, but I am also introducing it as significant but stand-alone legislation. There was the option for us to incorporate it, for example, in the Domestic Abuse and Family Proceedings Bill that is going through the House today. However, two issues with that caused me some concern.

The first is that it conflates domestic abuse and stalking. Not everyone who is stalked is a victim of domestic abuse. In fact, often stalkers have got nothing to do with the domestic setting and have no prior relationship with the individual who is stalked. That is a very important in terms of clarity for the public. It also would have risked stalking not being given the adequate attention that it needs to be given in order to be be properly scrutinised by the Committee. Creating a stand-alone offence also allows us time to ensure appropriate training for the justice agencies that will have to imlement and deliver it once the offence has been created.

Andy Allen (UUP, Belfast East)

2. Mr Allen asked the Minister of Justice to outline the number of illegal fireworks that have been seized in each of the last four years. (AQO 1113/17-22)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The seizure of illegal fireworks is an operational matter for the PSNI and the Chief Constable. The number of incidents in which the PSNI have seized fireworks over the last four years is as follows: 148 in 2016-7; 120 in 2017-18; 129 in 2018-19; and 149 in 2019-2020. The number of fireworks seized in each incident is not counted.

The law is clear on the purchase, possession and use of fireworks. A licence is required to buy, sell or use fireworks. It is an offence to buy or sell fireworks without one. I encourage anyone who has any information about the sale of illegal fireworks to report it to the PSNI or the charity Crimestoppers.

Steve Aiken (UUP, South Antrim)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Minister, I appreciate that you have pointed out that it is an operational matter for the PSNI. However, I, and I am sure many other Members, continue to be contacted by constituents who are raising concerns about the illegal sale of fireworks. It is important that, where people do have information, they pass that on to the PSNI.

We have also seen in the media recent examples of the dangers of fireworks. What engagement have you had with Executive colleagues about educating and highlighting to our young people the dangers of fireworks?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I thank the Member for his question. To date, I have had no proactive interaction personally with Executive colleagues on this matter. However, I am aware that Belfast City Council, at the request of one of my colleagues, is now taking forward public education about fireworks and on better educating people about the law. That was passed by Belfast City Council's policy and resources committee on 24 January. The council also has a role in developing community strategies through the PCSPs and others to address those issues.

Emma Rogan (Sinn Féin, South Down)

My question has been answered.

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

Given that councils and the police carry out a role, I urge the Minister to deliver some sort of policy or overarching strategy to manage this issue. In my constituency, in the Flying Horse and Model Farm estates, from as much as eight to 10 weeks before Halloween, fireworks are being thrown at people and cars. People are being tortured. We need to do what we can to stop the number of fireworks well in advance of Halloween. If it needs an inter-agency approach will the Minister consider that?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Yes, of course. I am happy to consider any approach and to work with Executive colleagues to address the issue. I was simply making Members aware that the PCSPs and the councils are, in some cases, already doing quite substantive work on community information.

It is an issue that I recognise as serious. I know that, from my Department's point of view, the law is robust in this regard. However, part of the issue, as Mr Allen said, is that we need to get information to the PSNI about where fireworks are being bought and sold illegally, because that would make a huge difference.

However, there are things that central government could do. For example, lower-noise fireworks can be produced. We know the distress that fireworks can cause to young children, to pets and to people with sensory issues. It is incredibly important that all avenues are pursued when looking at the issue of fireworks, including keeping people safe and free from harm and abuse.

Members will be aware that we are reviewing our position on antisocial behaviour, and illegal fireworks are obviously one element of antiscocial behaviour that needs to be considered.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

3. Mr Chambers asked the Minister of Justice how many prisoners have been placed in the care and supervision unit at HMP Maghaberry for more than 10 days in each of the last three years. (AQO 1114/17-22)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

In 2017, 126 prisoners were held for more than 10 days in the Maghaberry care and supervision unit (CSU); in 2018, 145 prisoners; and, in 2019, 158 prisoners. Some of those prisoners may have been held in the unit on more than one occasion. The figures need to be taken in the context of the number of people committed to Maghaberry prison in those years. In 2017, 3,083 people were committed; in 2018, the number was 3,224; and 3,344 in 2019.

The Northern Ireland Prison Service takes its responsibility for the safety and well-being of all the people in its care very seriously. Care and supervision units play an important role in our prisons as places where individuals can be kept apart from the general population in the interests of good order and discipline or for their own protection or the protection of others. They also provide an environment for tailored care and interaction planning, partner agency engagement, signposting and referrals to assist in addressing underlying issues leading to harmful behaviour.

An individual may be placed in the CSU as a result of breaching prison rules, including engaging in harmful behaviours, violence, disruptive, aggressive, or antisocial behaviour, as well as drug seeking, taking or trafficking. Every case is considered individually, and there is a stringent and transparent process in place to manage and review all cases. The Independent Monitoring Board is also advised when a person is placed in the CSU. Prisoners are held in the CSU only for such time as is considered absolutely necessary, and the initial period of restriction will not exceed 72 hours. Any request to extend that time will be recommended only after a multidisciplinary case review, chaired by a governor, and will include the individual concerned. The request is considered by an authorising officer from outside the prison, who will interview the prisoner as part of the process, should there be a recommendation for extension. All cases are reviewed weekly through the CSU manager's weekly assessment, which allows for any application to be ended if the circumstances change.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

Thank you, Minister. I welcome the fact that the Criminal Justice Inspection (CJI) will now conduct a review of care and supervision units. It is a shame, however, that it took an article in 'The Detail' to begin such a review. Can the Minister tell us why the number of prisoners held in care and supervision units has increased from 585 in 2015 to 755 in 2019?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Yes, I can. As the Member will know, the prison at Maghaberry had a very poor record. It was once referred to as the most dangerous prison in Europe. As a result of very hard work by the Prison Service to keep its officers, and the general prison population, safe, the use of CSUs was introduced. This was not, by the way, as some, including 'The Detail', have said, solitary confinement. It is not solitary confinement. People in CSUs still have access to other individuals, they still get exercise outdoors, they still have access to the gym, they still have access to the health trust, and they still have prison visits. This is not, by any stretch of the imagination, solitary confinement.

I correct the Member: the Criminal Justice Inspection has inspected Maghaberry prison, including the CSU, on a number of occasions and has given it a clean bill of health, as it has in every other prison.

We have not invited in the Criminal Justice Inspection in order to placate those who say that the prison is not well run.

We asked it to come in because we are confident that its report will show that the article that suggested that that is akin to people being held in solitary confinement is inaccurate. That is also reflected in the comments of the current Prisoner Ombudsman, who has visited the CSU, as have I. I assure Members that I would not tolerate people being held for long periods in solitary confinement.

I have witnessed the work of the CSU and the dedication of the officers who work in it in trying to turn around prisoners who not only have very complex needs but are incredibly dangerous to themselves and other members of the prison population. If we are to rehabilitate people, it is important that the context enables us to do so as best as we possibly can. A disruptive prisoner in the main prison fails to allow the normal prison regime to continue and to rehabilitate other prisoners. It also means that we cannot tailor on a one-to-one basis the rehabilitation support that is provided to individuals in the way that we can in the CSU.

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

I welcome the announcement of the CJINI review of CSUs across the North. Will the Minister indicate a time frame for the completion of that review?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I will have to write to the Member with more information on that; I do not have the time frame in front of me. However, it is intended to be a short, sharp review because CJINI has visited all the CSUs, quite recently, when doing the normal prison reviews.

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

What programmes are in place to support those with poor mental health who are referred to the care and supervision unit?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

There are a number of options for dealing with people in the care and supervision unit. There are distraction packs, there is support and signposting to mental health, and there is one-to-one work between the prison officers and the individuals in the CSU. People need to be realistic: we are dealing with a very complex prison population, some of whom have multiple needs that have not been addressed before they arrive in prison. Not all of those individuals are easy to work with. They are often violent offenders or have complex issues. We have to protect our prison staff and other members of the prison population from the risks at which they would be placed. We also have a duty of care to the individuals who have complex needs to ensure that they are not a harm to themselves. I have witnessed, in my discussions with the Prison Service, some of the drugs that people try to bring into the prison system secreted in their body. If those drugs were to make it into the main prison system, there would be carnage for not just prison officers but other prisoners. People have to be held in a dry cell so that those drugs can be retrieved. That, unfortunately, can take a protracted period due to the intimidation and threat that many of those drug mules are under to bring those drugs securely into the prison. Therefore, it is often for their own protection that they are held for longer than we would ideally like; that ensures that those drugs do not make their way into the main prison population. Those are not minor issues; significant hauls of drugs are caught in the CSU.

There are also those with mental health issues. As the Member, quite rightly, said, they need additional care and therapeutic support. I have been hugely impressed by the work of the South Eastern Health and Social Care Trust in how it engages proactively on mental health in prisons generally and how it works with those with very complex needs in the CSU environment.

Rachel Woods (Green, North Down)

Minister, you will be aware that I have been asking lots of questions about CSUs for some time now. I agree that it is a complex issue. Surely the situation with drugs supports the need for body scanners to be implemented in our prisons to weed out the ones who are carrying and those who are not. The Independent Monitoring Board (IMB) was mentioned. It plays a crucial role in inspecting CSUs, monitoring their use and speaking to prisoners, but its volunteers' work is often hampered by their not having remote access to communications facilities; they have to travel to Maghaberry to pick up an email. Minister, when will your Department provide volunteers with adequate, secure, remote IT systems that will assist their work, especially in the context of COVID-19 and your recently announced review of CSUs?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I am happy to look into the issue and come back to the Member with a time frame. I have to say, however, that it is not just the Independent Monitoring Board that monitors CSUs. As I have already said, CJINI has looked at them. They were also recently described as an example of international best practice by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). CSUs are therefore thoroughly supervised and scrutinised. I am more than happy, however, to increase that scrutiny, because that is in everyone's interests and prevents a misunderstanding about what happens in the prison system.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

4. Miss McIlveen asked the Minister of Justice for an update on the implementation of recommendations from the review of civil and family justice. (AQO 1115/17-22)

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

5. Mr Buckley asked the Minister of Justice for an update on the implementation of the recommendations outlined in the Gillen review report. (AQO 1116/17-22)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

With your permission, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will answer questions 4 and 5 together, please.

The review of civil and family justice is being considered as part of an evolving civil and family justice modernisation programme, which is one of a number of reform initiatives that are being progressed by my Department. Consideration of review recommendations is in itself a significant undertaking. Collectively, the reports contain around 400 wide-ranging recommendations, which vary from minor technical and procedural issues to substantive reforms.

Not all of the recommendations are for my Department. Around two thirds are matters for the judiciary, the legal profession and other Departments. Of the areas that fall to Justice, I want to ensure that my Department prioritises those that are likely to generate the greatest benefits for our citizens. We have made good progress, including the additional protections for vulnerable court users that are being introduced through the Domestic Abuse and Family Proceedings Bill, and a joint action plan that is being developed with the Department of Health to improve outcomes for families involved in private family law proceedings. That represents a good start. Clearly, however, more needs to be done. I am working with my officials to prioritise future actions within existing resources.

Michelle McIlveen (DUP, Strangford)

I appreciate the Minister's response. The review reports were published in 2017. Has the Minister costed the recommendations that fall within her remit? A number of the recommendations contain a raft of proposals, which include greater digitalisation and use of modern technology. Given that, with the onset of COVID, the use of technology for virtual court hearings has increased, what steps will the Minister's Department take to enhance the use of technology during the pandemic and beyond?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

As I said, we will have to deal with the Gillen review as we deal with most issues, which is on the basis that we must live within existing budgets. Unfortunately, that is the stark reality that faces the Justice Department and many other Departments. That is likely only to become more of a challenge after the COVID crisis, because I suspect that the Treasury will now look at how it recovers some of the expenditure that it has been forced to use over the past number of months. It is a stark reality, and it does, of course, hamper what we are able to do.

On the particular issue of the use of technology, however, I have to say that that has been a good outcome from COVID, and there have been very few of those. Necessity has been the mother of invention. Instead of there often being resistance from people in the justice system to the use of remote technology, there has been a willingness to engage on that issue in order to ensure that the courts are competent and able to continue to deliver justice over the period. It is certainly my view and that of the Criminal Justice Board, and also, I believe, the view of those who are involved in civil proceedings, that we capture the benefits that we have gained from the development of technology as a result of COVID and ensure that those benefits are embedded in the system going forward.

Jonathan Buckley (DUP, Upper Bann)

I am sure that the Member for Strangford will agree with my question, as great minds think alike. I know that the Minister will agree that urgent action is required, given the seriousness of the issue, the length of time since the Gillen review and the fact that some of its important recommendations will require specific legislation. Can she give us an absolute guarantee that she will bring the miscellaneous provisions Bill to the House before the end of the mandate?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Over the past week, I have said many times, although for different reasons, that it is impossible to give guarantees, because none of us can see into the future. Standing here, however, with the longest view that I have, I can certainly give the Member my guarantee that I will do my best to get that miscellaneous provisions Bill to the Committee. My Department is on track to do that. I would hope to have the Bill with the Assembly and Committee early next year, probably, in March. I cannot give cast-iron guarantees, however, because I do not know what will happen.

I want to mention the issue of cost, because it was raised by the Member's colleague. There is also a saving to the justice system if we are able to use remote technology, because, although it requires upfront investment, it saves us money in other places. There is the opportunity for us, within our means, to recoup some of the money that we spend, for example, on transporting people around the countryside for hearings that are then adjourned. We have seen new and more agile ways of working, such as an adjournment now being done on an administrative basis prior to a person's attendance at court. All those things have been long overdue, and, if COVID has delivered them, we need to embed them as part of the system.

I agree with the Member that there is an urgency. However, not all the issues require legislation. I want to reassure him of that. There are many issues where it is about procedures and practice. What we will try to do, through cooperation and collaboration with the other justice agencies, is to ensure that we have the best possible practice in place in order to minimise delay as we take forward those recommendations.

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

I call Seán Lynch for a question.

Sean Lynch (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

The Minister has answered my question.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

7. Mr Beattie asked the Minister of Justice to outline the work done by the Northern Ireland Probation Board in dealing with politically motivated offenders within the community. (AQO 1118/17-22)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The term "politically motivated offender" is not used to describe any specific cadre of offender released on licence in our community. On 8 September 2020, under my direction, the Department introduced multi-agency review arrangements to support the classification and management of the risks posed by individuals considered to be terrorist-related offenders. Those arrangements provide a platform for the Probation Board for Northern Ireland (PBNI), the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the Prison Service and officials in the Department to work together for that cadre of offender in order to give effect to the purpose of licence supervision: namely, to protect the public from harm; to reduce reoffending; and to support the rehabilitation of the offender.

Once classified as a terrorist-related offender, individuals will be required to apply through the interim arrangements to secure approval to change address in Northern Ireland and/or the rest of the United Kingdom; to travel to other jurisdictions in and/or outside the United Kingdom; and to resettle permanently outside Northern Ireland.

The Probation Board for Northern Ireland is an integral partner in those arrangements. Probation contributes towards decisions surrounding the classification of individuals as terrorist-related offenders and considers and advises on the potential impact on resettlement and social welfare support relating to decisions surrounding change of address, travel or permanent resettlement.

The interim arrangements provide a basis for relevant information to be shared across justice organisations to enable balanced decisions to be reached that contribute towards protecting the public from harm while supporting the resettlement of the offender into society.

Doug Beattie (UUP, Upper Bann)

I thank the Minister for keeping me right on the terminology. I noticed that I had that wrong. I was calling them "politically motivated offenders", but they are "terrorist-related offenders".

Given that the Probation Board, which provides a fantastic service, finds itself in difficulties when it comes under threat from terrorist organisations, meaning that it has to withdraw its services from certain parts of Northern Ireland, what are we doing to future-proof that so that it does not happen and to ensure that the Probation Board can do its job in areas where threats may exist?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The Member makes a very important point. Anyone who works in our justice system can face threats and intimidation from terrorist offenders. The reason that I use "terrorist offenders" as opposed to "politically motivated offenders" is that I simply do not accept that those people have political motivation. I think that they are motivated by self-interest and abuse of their community, so I do not think that we should give any traction to the view that they have political ambitions or that political ambitions are in any way a cover for their offending.

Prior to the arrangements that we introduced in September through the multi-agency review approach, the Probation Board was already engaging with terrorist-related offenders to provide resettlement and welfare support. The Member is, of course correct: due to threats and intimidation, that became very difficult. The Probation Board is good at its job, because, unlike in other parts of the UK, its staff are all qualified social workers, so their focus is on rehabilitation and social support, and, because they are from and live in the communities where they manage offenders, they are passionate about doing the job well. Their job does, however, perhaps make them more vulnerable to some who would rather their activities were not supervised when they leave prison.

In any event, for terrorist-related offenders, licensed conditions that support public protection have been monitored by the Police Service of Northern Ireland. In addition to that, we are increasing the use of electronic monitoring to enhance measures to protect the public from the risk of harm posed by terrorist-related offenders. I hope that the robustness of the new arrangements will allow us to do that in a much more effective and equitable way.

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

That ends the period for listed questions. We now move on to 15minutes of topical questions.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

T1. Ms Sugden asked the Minister of Justice to give her assessment of the need for a definition of "harm". (AQT 681/17-22)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Mr Deputy Speaker, I must apologise. I did not hear the Member's question.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

My apologies. Will the Minister give her assessment of the definition of "harm" in law?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Without further information as to exactly what the Member is asking, it would be very difficult to answer her question because I am unclear as to the premise of it.

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

Perhaps the Member would use her supplementary to clarify.

Claire Sugden (Independent, East Londonderry)

I will. I am thinking, Minister, of one of the amendments tabled by Mr Jim Allister in respect of harm versus action, and harm tends to be something that is felt by the victim but there is not necessarily any definition within law. Might it be useful for this law, and, indeed, others, to work towards creating a definition for "harm", or maybe an index?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

The purpose of the Domestic Abuse and Family Proceedings Bill is to criminalise the actions, not the impact, of the person's abusive behaviour. If we try to criminalise impact, that becomes very difficult. For example, you would then be saying that it was not an offence to drive your car without wearing a seatbelt or while intoxicated provided that no damage was caused. That would be a dangerous course of action.

Of course, harm is a consideration when it comes to sentencing, but it is the intent to commit an offence and the recklessness with respect to the harm that is likely to be felt by others that we are trying to capture in the Bill, criminalising not the impact but the behaviour.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

T2. Mr Chambers asked the Minister of Justice, who will be aware that the Northern Ireland Policing Board has exhausted its investigation of Gerry Kelly's outrageous tweet about the Maze escape without reaching a conclusion and that it now falls to the Minister to decide whether to remove him from the board, whether she agrees that public confidence in the board is the most important consideration in her determination. (AQT 682/17-22)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I am indeed aware that that has been exhausted by the Policing Board, and that they have taken a look at whether or not — as, under their procedures, they should — informal resolution could be reached. No complainant was willing to seek an informal resolution. That is what exhausted the processes of the board.

I said at the time that I found Mr Kelly's comments offensive and thoroughly inappropriate. I asked that he reaffirm his commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means, consistent with his responsibilities as a member of the Policing Board and a Member of this legislative Assembly.

When the incident occurred, I took the view that any investigation into whether Mr Kelly was in breach of the Policing Board code of conduct was for the board to consider in the first instance. That investigation by the board has now concluded without resolution and has been referred to me for consideration under the powers available to me in the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000 to remove a member from the board.

I am considering, based on legal advice, what action I should take. I am not in a position to comment further at this time.

Alan Chambers (UUP, North Down)

The Minister has alluded to the fact that, under the Police (Northern Ireland) Act 2000, if someone is "unfit to discharge his functions" as a member of the board, she has the power to remove them. Given his tweet, and the earlier well-publicised use of bolt cutters to remove a legally placed wheel clamp from his vehicle, in what way does the Minister think that Mr Kelly might be fit to continue as a board member?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I refer the Member to my previous answer.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

T3. Mr Butler asked the Minister of Justice, after thanking her for her recent work with prison staff, whether she has had discussions with the director general of the Northern Ireland Prison Service with regard to marking the centenary of Northern Ireland. (AQT 683/17-22)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

No.

Robbie Butler (UUP, Lagan Valley)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Would the Minister just give a commitment to open a line of discussion with the director general, perhaps marking the occasion with a medal, for those who want a medal, and seek to ensure that the Prison Service is in line with other emergency services for the Platinum Jubilee medal?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

I am happy to talk to the Member outside the Chamber and get more information on what it is he requires. However, I remind him that the first duty of the director general is to ensure that prison officers and those within his care are kept safe. At the moment, there are considerable pressures in the prison system given COVID and a number of other developments, so I think that we have to prioritise our actions over the next while. However, I am happy to discuss with the Member and see whether there is an appropriate way forward.

Maolíosa McHugh (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

T4. Mr McHugh asked the Minister of Justice, given the Finance Minister's confirmation that there is £5 million ring-fenced for legacy, whether she can confirm what it will be used for. (AQT 684/17-22)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

My understanding is that there is some confusion around this issue. There is an amount for legacy that has been ring-fenced for the inquests that were agreed. There may also be additional legacy funding through the work that is done by the Police Ombudsman and by the police in their work on legacy litigation. At this stage, we are working with the Police Ombudsman on an outline business case that she has presented to us, and we will work through the normal processes in that regard.

The issue of legacy, however, is much more complex. Because the Secretary of State has unilaterally changed the proposals from the Stormont House Agreement around legacy and provided no certainty or clarity as to what will happen next, the money, for example, that was set aside as part of the NDNA commitments, which in total would have reached, I think, £250 million, is not accessible to my Department to deal with legacy issues as it is ring-fenced specifically for setting up the structures of the Stormont House Agreement. I have written to the Secretary of State about that, and I have flagged up with the Department of Finance and will continue to do so the particular pressures and uncertainties that face my Department's budget in respect of legacy matters.

Maolíosa McHugh (Sinn Féin, West Tyrone)

Quite possibly, you may have answered my supplementary question in your response. I intended to ask you when a business case would be submitted for this money by the Department of Justice. I would not say that it seems clear; I am a wee bit confused as to who might be submitting the business case.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

To clarify, the business case would come from the agencies that are dealing with those particular pressures, and it is the job of my Department to first interrogate the robustness of the business case and then to pass it to the Department of Finance once we are satisfied that it meets the test. Even when the business case is approved by the Department of Finance, that is not a guarantee that we will be successful when we bid for money from the Department of Finance for those issues. It is a challenge, and we have to be honest about that. I also have to say to Members that the challenges that face the Department and the potential costs of dealing with legacy in a piecemeal way will far exceed £5 million.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

T5. Mr Easton asked the Minister of Justice, with 164 weapons having been found in our prisons over the past five years, what actions she is taking to make sure that our prisons are secure and our prison officers well protected. (AQT 685/17-22)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Based on the conversation that we had earlier around care and supervision units and other things, it is very clear that we are taking every measure possible to ensure that our prisons are safe. Often, those weapons are found as a result of the hard work of the Prison Service to identify those who either bring weapons into the prison secreted on their person or, indeed, those who fashion weapons within the prison system from materials that are available to them. We do work with complex and often very violent offenders in some of those cases, so we do have to be acute to the risk that they pose to themselves, to other prisoners and to the Prison Service.

I have to say that I am hugely impressed. One of the greatest pleasures of this job is to spend time in our prisons. That may sound like an odd thing to say, but I have the luxury of knowing that I will leave at the end of my visits and that my visits are quite short. I have been hugely, hugely impressed by the work of Prison Service. The dedication and the passion that they have for rehabilitation is second to none, and I really wish that more Members had the ability and the space — it is unfortunate with COVID — to see up close what goes on within our prisons because it is truly remarkable.

Alex Easton (DUP, North Down)

I thank the Minister for her answer. Another worrying statistic is that 453 items of drugs have been found in our prisons over the past five years. Is there cooperation between the PSNI, the Prison Service and your Department to try to close down those avenues of drugs coming into our prisons?

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Yes, it is a real concern, and, obviously, when those drugs make their way into the prison system, they cause huge disruption to it. They also cause huge danger because, often, those illicit drugs could lead to deaths in the prison system, and they could trigger underlying mental health conditions and a whole host of other things. They are also a trigger for violence in the prison system, because the street value of some of those drugs is multiplied by a factor of 20 when they enter the prison. You then have that contraband passing through the prison and there is a huge amount of violence. One of the great difficulties in detecting drugs is that people are willing to go to extraordinary and exceptionally dangerous lengths in order to get drugs in and out of the prison, and that makes it incredibility difficult. We have to manage that against the right, for example, for people to receive care packages from home, along with other things that might be necessary. We also need to bear in mind that the pressure on people who are put in a situation where they are trafficking drugs into the prison, or attempting to do so, can be extraordinary, and, if they fail in their attempts, they may be at risk. We have to balance not only removing the drugs from the system but protecting those who may have been under duress in bringing them in.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

T6. Mr Storey asked the Minister of Justice, after thanking her for her comments about the Prison Service, with which he concurred, and the confirmation that she is looking at the issue of ensuring that the disgraceful comments made by Mr Kelly are dealt with in a way that is in keeping with the legislation, to outline the current situation with supporting multi-agency support hubs, as concern has been expressed by the Committee for Justice in the House and in correspondence to the Policing Board that funding may be removed. (AQT 686/17-22)

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

When the issue of support hubs was initially introduced, we provided additional funding on a three-year basis in order that councils could use that money, along with PCSPs and others, to realign their service provision during that period. The anticipation was that it would lead to a more efficient model of cooperation and, therefore, that there would not be ongoing costs. However, the Department recognises that the ending of that funding during the COVID pandemic, along with all the other challenges that the councils may face, is difficult. Therefore, when we received representatives from some councils that felt that they may not be able to continue with the development of the support hubs in the absence of that funding, we agreed to extend the funding to the end of the year. We hope that that will buy us the time to be able to review how we take this forward, and that is because I remain absolutely committed to support hubs and am very impressed by the work that they do.

Mervyn Storey (DUP, North Antrim)

I thank the Minister for that confirmation; it is welcome. Will the Minister, in the spirit in which she has responded to the concerns that have been raised, engage with the Policing Board, PCSPs, the councils and the other elements of the statutory agencies, until we ensure that we find a funding model that is appropriate? Obviously, the work that has been achieved to date has brought success and is something that we want to build on for the future.

Naomi Long (Alliance, Belfast East)

Yes, I give the Member that assurance. As I said, we recognise that the support hub issue is hugely important. It has shown success, so we do not want to see it fall into abeyance simply because of a short-term funding issue. However, we need to be realistic. As he sits on the Policing Board and, particularly, in looking over the resources, the Member will know that there are real strictures around some of the funding that we have available.

We have already met members of the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives (SOLACE) and others in the council sector, and we will continue to work with the police and others. We want to find a model that is financially sustainable and efficient in delivering the enhanced level of care and support in the community. I think that they are an absolute exemplar of collaborative working, and they bring together key partners to facilitate early intervention. Ultimately, early intervention will reap huge rewards in the finances of the Department, as well as in people's lives and outcomes.

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

OK, Members, time is up. Members should take their ease, and then we will move to questions to the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs.

Oral Answers to Questions — Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs

Jemma Dolan (Sinn Féin, Fermanagh and South Tyrone)

1. Ms Dolan asked the Minister of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs how he will mitigate any disruption to the beef sector as a result of changes to the agricultural flat rate scheme (AFRS). (AQO 1126/17-22)